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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Today in La Spezia the Minister of Defense Lorenzo Guerini inaugurates SeaFuture 2021, the military-naval exhibition sponsored by the main war industries. In the lead Fincantieri (“strategic sponsor”), Leonardo (“platinum sponsor”) and Mbda (European joint venture in which Leonardo has 25%) which participates as “gold sponsor”.

The “Future” has already been outlined in the “Directive for the industrial policy of Defense”, issued by Guerini on July 29: Italy must “have a military instrument capable of expressing the advanced military capabilities that the country needs to protect its national interests”, which ensures “its membership in the circle of technologically and economically advanced countries”. The Directive, overturning Article 11 and other constitutional principles with the silent consent of Parliament, establishes that Italy must increasingly arm itself.

At the same time it establishes that Italy must maintain and strengthen “the strategic relationship with the United States, to ensure the involvement in technological innovation that finds in the U.S. one of the main incubators, to facilitate access of Italian companies in the American market and to better position Italy in the European context.

The line traced by the Directive has already been operational for some time. Suffice it to recall: the boarding on the aircraft carrier Cavour, the Navy’s flagship, of the US F-35B short take-off and vertical landing fighter aircraft, for which the ship was certified at Norfolk in Virginia; the decision to arm Italian submarines and frigates with Cruise missiles with a range of at least 1,000 km; the decision to arm the Reaper drones, which Italy has purchased from the US. These and other armaments, with which our armed forces are equipped, are not for defense but for attack.

The Cavour armed with the F-35B becomes an advanced military base that, deployed in distant theaters of war, can attack and invade a country; the submarines and frigates can strike a country from a great distance with cruise missiles that, flying at very low altitude over the sea and along the contour of the land, escape anti-aircraft defences; the Reaper drones, remotely controlled from thousands of kilometres away, can strike human “targets” with Infernal Fire missiles and laser or satellite guided bombs. Italy is thus arming itself to participate in other wars under US/NATO command.

The “strategic relationship with the United States”, established by the Directive, is getting stronger every day. The Fincantieri group, 70% controlled by the Ministry of Economy, has three shipyards in the USA, where it is building ten multi-role frigates for the US Navy and four similar warships for Saudi Arabia. Leonardo – the largest Italian military industry, which derives over 70% of its turnover from armaments – supplies products and services to the US armed forces and intelligence agencies, and in Italy manages the Cameri plant for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighters. The 30% of the shareholding of the Leonardo group belongs to the Ministry of Economic Development.

For this reason, at the military exhibition in La Spezia, alongside Minister Guerini of the PD, Minister Giorgetti of the League participates. Described as an “expert in accounts”, he is in charge of managing the 30 billion euros already allocated by the Ministry of Economic Development for military purposes and the other 25 required by the Recovery Fund.  The 26 billion euros spent annually by the Ministry of Defence are no longer enough.  It is necessary to pass to at least 36 billion per year, as requested by NATO and reiterated by the US.

Just to make a few figures, the aircraft carrier Cavour cost 1.3 billion euros, the 15 F-35Bs for the Navy cost 1.7 billion, and to these are added another 15 F-35Bs and 60 F-35As with nuclear capability for the Air Force. Then there are the operational expenses: one day of navigation of the Cavour costs over 200 thousand euros and one hour of flight of an F-35 over 40 thousand euros. Always with public money subtracted from the social species, invested in weapons and wars to “protect our national interests and belong to the circle of economically advanced countries.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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 FDA ignored warnings before the vaccine was distributed that it would likely cause organ damage; data published before and after the program was initiated showed it was the spike protein that damaged the microvasculature

An analysis of 789 professional athletes with COVID-19 showed no adverse cardiac events in healthy individuals; however, the VAERS shows 11,793 people who had a heart attack or diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after the jab

Data from a patient group treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko showed none of the 3,000 patients he treated within the first five day of the onset of COVID-19 went on to develop long-haul symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog or difficulty breathing

The list of people reporting adverse events from the jab is growing. To tell their stories, two websites have been created since social media platforms are routinely removing any information about adverse events

*

This video from the Front Line doctors White Coat Summit was published in mid-August. In it, pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole succinctly outlines many of the health challenges associated with the experimental genetic therapy injection program. He asks, after thousands of people have died from the injection, where are the autopsies to investigate this investigational program?

In July 2021, the U.S. military published a study in JAMA Cardiology¹ in which they asked the question if myocarditis was a possible adverse event following a jab with mRNA COVID-19 injection. They identified 23 men who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 4 days of getting the shot. They determined that there was a diagnosis of myocarditis after “vaccination in the absence of other identified causes.”²

And yet, despite finding myocarditis in previously healthy individuals following the shot, the writers only recommended vigilance. The heart problems in 23 military men who had signed up to protect the citizens of the U.S., “should not diminish overall confidence in vaccinations during the current pandemic.”³

As of September 3, 2021, the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS)⁴ had received 675,591 reports of adverse events following vaccination. Of these, there were 14,506 deaths, 6,422 heart attacks and 5,371 cases of pericarditis or myocarditis.

It is important to note that the VAERS has tracked adverse events since 1990. In 2019, there were 605 reports of deaths from all vaccines given. In 2021, there were 14,594 deaths reported in nine months.

Although these numbers are significant, a 2010 Harvard study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services revealed data demonstrating the VAERS likely only represents approximately 1% of those who are injured.⁵

In light of these statistics and knowing the new shot program was experimental, December 18, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief legal counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, requested the Biden Administration consider establishing a “comprehensive, high integrity system to monitor adverse outcomes following vaccination.”⁶

In early 2020, many clinicians, scientists and other health experts warned that millions of people may experience potentially permanent or long-term injury or death after the shot. Interestingly, it is the call for greater surveillance of vaccine injury that has, in part, generated censorship from social media platforms through AI surveillance of your posts.

Spike Protein Damages Endothelial Cells and Hurts Heart

Dr. J. Patrick Whelan is a pediatric rheumatologist who warned the FDA of the microvascular injury the vaccine may cause to the kidneys, brain, liver and heart before it was released to the public. Whelan specializes in treating children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), which is associated with coronavirus infections.⁷

He did not dispute the potential benefit the vaccine might have to arrest the spread of the virus, but instead cautioned that recipients may experience permanent damage to their microvasculature. At the time, his concern was based on data scientists and doctors were reporting after an infection with COVID-19 affected multiple organs beyond the lungs.

In March 2021, a research study was published in the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation.⁸ However, it is important to note that the study was preprinted online in December 2020,⁹ before the first vaccine was administered in the U.S.¹⁰

This is important, since the study demonstrated that the spike protein associated with SARS-CoV-2 damages endothelial function.¹¹ In other words, before the emergency use authorization jab that injected instructions to create the spike protein was first administered, the CDC, FDA and NIAID were well aware the spike protein was likely causing damage to the endothelial cells lining the circulatory system.

This information was not discussed in the media and not considered by the FDA, and it continues to be buried as government agencies push for 100% vaccination in the U.S. In the study, the researchers created a pseudo-virus¹² that contained the spike protein but did not contain the virus. Using an animal model, they showed that the virus was not necessary to create damage and inflammation.¹³

When the S protein attached to the ACE2 receptor it disrupted signaling to the mitochondria and caused damage and fragmentation. The alterations in mitochondrial function were confirmed as part of the inhibition of ACE2 signaling in the lab.

The results also revealed that the virus could induce endothelial cell inflammation and endotheliitis. The protein reportedly decreased ACE2 levels and impaired nitric oxide bioavailability.¹⁴ Co-senior scientist of the study, Uri Manor, explained in a press release from Salk Institute:¹⁵

“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID. Further studies with mutant spike proteins will also provide new insight towards the infectivity and severity of mutant SARS CoV-2 viruses.”

Further Study Demonstrates the Effect of the Spike Protein

Then, a second paper¹⁶ was published online March 8, 2021, investigated the potential that the spike protein is an inflammagen, or an irritant that can trigger inflammation at the cellular level. The researchers sought to determine if the spike protein was the underlying cause of the hypercoagulation found with a COVID-19 infection.

Mass spectrometry showed the spike protein damaged fibrinogen, prothrombin and complement 3, all compounds used in coagulation. They suggested that the presence of the protein was contributing to hypercoagulation and may result in large microclots that have been observed in plasma samples from patients infected with COVID-19.

Again, science demonstrated that it wasn’t the virus causing endothelial damage that led to organ damage, such as was found in the heart, liver and kidney of COVID-19 patients. Rather, it was the spike protein that was also being injected in a genetic therapy shot program.

A third study published April 27, 2021, again demonstrated in an animal model that exposure to the spike protein alone was enough to induce severe lung damage.¹⁷ And yet, there was no move by governmental agencies to slow the distribution of this genetic experiment.

Researchers have continued to study how the spike protein affects the endothelial cells, and ultimately damages the heart muscle. A study published June 2021 in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine¹⁸ demonstrated that the spike protein down regulates the expression of junctional proteins found in the arteries. They concluded:

“… these experiments reveal that Spike-induced degradation of endothelial junctional proteins affects endothelial barrier function and is the likely cause of vascular damage observed in COVID-19 affected individuals.”

Even as researchers identify the pathway the spike protein takes to damage the endothelial cells, it is patently ignored by the mainstream media, governmental agencies and many health experts who continue to push the public into vaccinating with a genetic therapy injection that does not effectively keep you from getting the disease or stop you from spreading the disease.

Infection Starts and May Stay in the Lungs

Interestingly, another study¹⁹ published in March 2021 questioned if the prevalence of inflammatory heart disease after COVID-19 infection in professional athletes would affect their ability to return to play.

The researchers evaluated 789 professional athletes who had COVID-19 and found no adverse cardiac events in those who underwent cardiac screening. In this group of healthy individuals, it appeared very rare for there to be systemic involvement of the spike protein.

However, in the VAERS reports September 3, 2021, there were a total of 11,793 individuals who suffered heart attack, myocarditis or pericarditis in the nine months that the vaccine had been administered.²⁰ The effect of COVID-19 on the heart is well documented.²¹

In my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko²² in February 2021, we discussed the treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine. At that point, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients with symptoms of COVID-19 and only three of his high-risk patients had subsequently succumbed to the disease.

While the focus of the interview was on treatment protocols and the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, Zelenko shared an interesting statistic about his protocol. In the early months of COVID-19, Zelenko decided to treat his high-risk patients as early as possible, without waiting for severe symptoms. This turned out to be one key to his significant success.

His understanding of the mechanism behind hydroxychloroquine and zinc led to using the combination alongside azithromycin, to prevent bacterial pneumonia and other bacterial infections common with COVID.

What is interesting are the statistics for Zelenko’s patients with long haul symptoms. Data from the University of Washington in 2021 found 32.7% of outpatients with COVID-19 go on to experience persistent symptoms.^23,24 However, Zelenko had treated 3,000 patients and none who received treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms. His data was from the same period as that of the University of Washington.

While he has had patients with persistent symptoms from COVID-19, they sought medical care after the first five days of symptoms, which meant the inflammatory process had advanced. From his experience, and the experience of the patients he treated, early intervention with the protocol nearly eliminated the risk of persistent symptoms.

Long Haul Symptoms May Be Related to Spike Damage

The symptoms that may last for weeks or months after a COVID-19 infection are referred to as long-haul symptoms. For some, this may be the result of vascular damage caused by the spike protein. The CDC²⁵ reports that a combination of the following symptoms without an active COVID infection can appear weeks after the infection and last for months.

Scientists now know that the predominant pathophysiology of COVID-19 includes endothelial damage and microvascular injury, stimulation of hyperinflammation and hypercoagulability.²⁶ A review in Physiological Reports²⁷ examined how the capillary damage and inflammation from endotheliitis triggered by COVID-19 could contribute to the persistent symptoms by interfering with tissue oxygenation.

The combined effects of capillary damage in multiple key organs may accelerate hypoxia-related inflammation and lead to long-haul symptoms. Unlike Zelenko’s patients who did not have long-haul symptoms, participants in an online survey published in EClinical Medicine did not fare so well.²⁸

The study revealed data from 3,762 participants with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 in 56 countries. For the majority, it took greater than 35 weeks to recover from all their symptoms. The data showed that people experienced an average of 55.9 symptoms across 9.1 organ systems. The most frequent symptoms six months after infection were cognitive dysfunction, fatigue and post-exertional malaise.

List of Vaccine Side Effects Is Growing

As the list of people reporting adverse events after the vaccine continues to grow, social media platforms are working just as hard to suppress any information about the list of side effects people are experiencing.

In order to tell their stories, people are posting videos, still photos and evidence of their vaccine injury at No More Silence²⁹ and 1000 COVID Stories.³⁰ One example is Sarah Green, a 16-year-old student who is experiencing debilitating symptoms. This is her story as told by her mother:³¹

“Within a few weeks, she developed a bad stutter and started experiencing uncontrollable head movements. She looked like someone who has Parkinson’s. She had never stuttered or had these tics before.

She was admitted to the hospital where she spent two nights and underwent numerous tests, before being discharged and told that it was a ‘nervous tic,’ and to see a mental health provider.

‘We asked several times if it could be the vaccine and we were ignored, until one doctor told us that he had no idea what it was, but it was ‘absolutely not the vaccine’ and we couldn’t blame everything on that.’

Her parents argued for a referral to see a neurologist, who diagnosed Sarah with Functional Movement Disorder, and told that it was “related to the vaccine, but not vaccine related.” They also said that it was an ‘extremely rare’ side effect, despite having seen several cases of it in their own practice over the past year.

Sarah had ended the last school year with a 4.7 GPA and was enrolled in an Early College program, on track to graduate with an Associates Degree. Given her current physical condition and limitations, she had no choice but to drop her college classes for this upcoming semester.

She has started her regular classes but has found it impossible to look down or write without triggering violent tremors and spasms. Her teacher will be typing her notes for her.

‘I am heartbroken because she has worked so hard and everything has changed for her — and I’m so damn mad! Our whole lives have changed, and for what what? A vaccine that doesn’t even work! My hope is that you, the reader, will be able to make an informed decision when deciding whether you get the vaccine or not. We were not afforded that opportunity.’”

It is crucial to report a vaccine injury or side effect to VAERS, as the data are essential in helping individuals, doctors and researchers make informed decisions. You can make your own report online or using a PDF by going to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.³² You’ll find more information about adverse events and how vaccines affect your health at the National Vaccine Information Center.³³

*

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, 2, 3 JAMA Cardiology, 2021; doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2833

^4, 20 OpenVAERS

⁵ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, September 30, 2010

^6, 7 The Defender, February 10, 2021

^8, 11 Circulation, 2021; 128:1323

⁹ bioRxiv, December 4, 2020; doi.org/10.1161/circresaha.121.318902

¹⁰ BBC News, December 14, 2020

¹² Investment Watch, May 7, 2021

^13, 14 Circulation Research, 2021; 128:1326

¹⁵ Salk Institute, April 30, 2021

¹⁶ medRxiv, March 8, 2021; doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.05.21252960

¹⁷ Medical Xpress, April 27, 2021

¹⁸ Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2021, doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.687783

¹⁹ JAMA Cardiology, 2021; 6(7)

²¹ The British Heart Foundation, Coronavirus and Your Health

²² Bitchute, February 5, 2021

²³ JAMA Network, February 19, 2021

²⁴ UC Davis Health, March 30, 2021

²⁵ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Post COVID Conditions

²⁶ Nature Medicine, 2021;27:601

²⁷ Physiological Reports, 2021; doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14726

²⁸ The Lancet EClinical Medicine, 2021;38(101019)

²⁹ NoMoreSilence

³⁰ 1000 COVID Stories

³¹ No More Silence, Sarah Green

³² VAERS

³³ National Vaccine Information Center

Featured image is from BigPharmaNews.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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

Author Edmond B. Paré has provided a careful and incisive review of vaccine injuries reported by Hospital Nurse Whistleblowers.

***

Hospital nurse whistleblowers are reporting that it is mostly the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated who are going to the hospital; and, their symptoms are not the symptoms of respiratory Covid-19 patients.

The symptoms these nurses name are those in the list that the FDA has been hiding from the public, as well as from these healthcare workers as well as from the recipients of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Thus, the FDA is in violation of FDA EUA requirements, as well as FDA approved vaccine informed consent requirements (once the Comirnaty jabs start).

For examples, please consider the following hospital nurse whistleblower interview statements:

1) September 9 – Nurse Whistleblower: Vaccines & Remdesivir are Killing and Maiming, Not Fake Variant [VIDEO]

Interview of a nurse who has worked with Covid patients since the start of the “pandemic”

At time = 6:43, this nurse whistleblower states, “The influx (of patients) I have seen is since the vaccination rollout and it’s more vaccination-related injuries, umm, blood clots, cardiac issues, neurological issues, balance issues, cognitive issues, aggressive behavior, encephalopathy, things like that that were, that are very different from the, the previous Covid.”

2) September 10 – Stew Peters – BOMBSHELL Exposure ICU Nurse Says Hospital Set to Deny Care to Unvaccinated! (9/10/21)

At time = 7:33

Stew Peters: Are you seeing vaccine injuries?

ICU Nurse: I would like to think they’re vaccine injuries. Um, again, these physicians will never acknowledge that. But, I have never seen so many spontaneous strokes, um, deadly strokes, mulitple strokes, um, bizarre rashes all over the body. I have never seen such young people come in with cardiac arrest. I have never performed so much cardiac arrest on young people with no, no reason.

Stew Peters: So, these are previously healthy people. All of a sudden they have heart issues; They’re having strokes.  

ICU Nurse: (Nods head in agreement)

3) September 27 – Stew Peters With MN Nurse Megan – “I’m Watching Them Commit Murder” – Interview of a 15-year hospital nurse

At time = 10:47

Stew Peters: What about vaccine injuries? Are you seeing some of the things that have been reported, ah, we’re seeing, ah, young people with mycarditis, heart issues; we’re seeing a lot of strokes and antibody dependent enhancement. Are you seeing these things first hand in your hospital?

Nurse Whistleblower: We are seeing those things. We actually had a paramedic in our hospital die within seven days of receiving the vaccine. He had had a prior Covid infection and he had a massive heart attack within seven days of having the vaccine and, and, that, that hit home.

That was personal. And, um, yes, we are seeing the vaccine injuries, Stew. We’re seeing an increase in strokes, an increase in MIs, pulmonary embolisms, blood clots in the legs, cognitive decline – major cognitive decline in the older population, neurological symptoms. We’re seeing all of that, Stew. And, and it is, again, it is just criminal that their stories are not being told.

4) September 20 – Starting at time = 29:11
THE STEW PETERS SHOW (9/20/2021) FLU SHOT W/ COVID JAB! WOMAN LOSES LEGS, WHISTLEBLOWERS! (FULL SHOW

Interview of a 30-year nurse, currently at the Univ of Vermont Medical Center

Stew Peters: Sandy says that she has questioned at least three doctors about the huge amount of anomalies that they’ve encountered treating Covid patients. She says that she’s seen at least five patients who, in her view, are one hundred percent cases linked with the Covid vaccines. There’s a young woman, a diabetic, for example, who is suddenly hospitalized with her (Sandy’s) first case of hyperglycemia – in a decade; a man in his early thirties with cardiac issues out of nowhere; and, then, much weirder things. A twenty-something with head to toe rashes like she’s never seen before; a woman with circular rashes and bloated, purple genitalia, not terribly unlike a female version of Nicki Minaj’s cousin’s friend. 

My summary of the remaining interview:

Shortly following the (December, 2020) Covid-19 vaccine rollouts, for the first time in this nurse’s experience, “tons” of patients began presenting themselves to her hospital not with normal cases  characterized by common disease symptoms, but with symptoms she had never seen before, not even when working in cancer related cases, some of these symptoms being “absolutely bizarre”.

Apparently, the CDC has instructed physicians that they are not allowed to question new patients regarding their Covid-19 vaccination status;

And, this directive is then imposed as a mandate to be followed all hospital’s healthcare workers. The consequence, is that doctors are not reporting these cases to VAERS because they are frequently not in a position to establish whether these patients are vaccinated or whether the patients symptoms could be caused by the Covid-19 vaccine.

Nurses are having to beat around the bush to try to determine whether these patients have been vaccinated; but, apparently, they are successful in doing so.

*

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.

***

 

This past week maneuvers within the Democratic party intensified over the content and magnitude of the two pending fiscal stimulus bills–the Infrastructure Bill (with $550B of net new spending) and the Reconciliation Bill ( with initial $3.5T ‘human infrastructure & climate change’ spending).

While the maneuvering appears as a deep difference of views between progressives in the US House and Senate demanding both bills pass simultaneously and Democrat Senators, Manchin and Senema in that body blocking both bills in current form, the actual conflict is really between the corporate wing of the Democratic party (in both the Senate and House) vs. the wing that sees passage of both bills in current corm as necessary to ensure a sustained economic recovery in 2022–and thus the Democrats retaining majorities in the House and Senate in the November 2022 midterm elections.

Manchin-Senema in the Senate and Cuellar and his ten associates in the House are really the point persons for the corporate wing.  The differences and split within the Democratic party are not about individual Senators or Representatives; it’s about the corporate forces that dominate and control the majority of that party (as they have since 1990) and those same corporate interests intent on ensuring the two spending bills are not so large that taxes will have to be significantly raised in order to pay for them. More specifically, ensuring that the Trump $4.5T tax cuts of 2017 are not rolled back.

Those corporate interests in the Democratic party have already prevailed in rolling back the Infrastructure bill to a level of only $550B in new spending (from its original $2.3T) to ensure paying for the $550B is not done by raising any taxes on corporations, investors and wealthiest Americans. They already succeeded. Now the same fight is underway to prevent the Reconciliation bill requiring tax hikes on the same capital incomes. To ensure no tax hikes for that bill, spending will have to be significantly cut or delayed, or perhaps both.

In other words, the split in the party and fight is not just over stimulus spending; it’s over taxes and rolling back the Trump tax cuts. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is as opposed to the tax hikes as are the Republican party & McConnell. To borrow a phrase from the 1990s: “it’s the tax cuts, stupid!”.

The next step in the corporate wing’s anti-tax hike offensive will occur in the US House early next week. Pelosi had promised weeks ago not to break out the two bills for separate votes, but vote on both at the same time. That was the promise made to the party’s progressive forces months back, in order to get Sanders and progressives in the Senate and the progressive caucus in the House to go along and remove trillions of dollars in spending on human infrastructure measures from the original Infrastructure bill and reduce that bill from $2.3T to only $550B in new spending on traditional infrastructure only.

That made the Infrastructure bill palatable to the corporate wing in the party since paying for it could now be done by ‘smoke & mirrors’ financing that involved no tax hikes. The corporate wing wants separate votes now on the two bills, the remaining Infrastructure bill first. Passing the watered down Infrastructure bill first would leave the $3.5T Reconciliation bill with weakened support and unable to pass–for certain in the Senate and maybe even in the House as well. Human infrastructure spending on Medicare, Education, Elderly-Child care, and climate change mitigation and prevention–and the tax hikes to pay for it–would be dead in the water.

The progressive caucus in the House and the Sanders-Warren faction in the Senate are demanding, however, that Pelosi honor her earlier pledge to vote on both bills at the same time. But will she? If she renegs on that promise and the House votes up both bills, the corporate wing in the Senate–represented by Manchin-Senema–will never vote for budget reconciliation (50 + 1 vote) to pass either of the two bills. The Senate likely will then vote on the Infrastructure bill and let the $3.5T Reconciliation bill die. That will put Pelosi and the House progressives behind the eight ball, as they say: refuse to vote for the Senate passed Infrastructure bill or take the heat in elections for refusing to pass anything. One can guess what the pragmatists will then do, including Pelosi.

So what are the possible scenarios in the House this coming week?

One will be for Pelosi to vote on both bills as promised. While possible, it is the least likely to happen, however.

A second is to reduce the $3.5T spending total dramatically. The progressive caucus won’t go along with that, however.

How then to ‘reconcile the reconciliation bill’?

A more likely compromise outcome may be to backload most of the $3.5T (or a reduced amount). That is, make the Reconciliation bill spending take effect over a ten or even fifteen year period, with most of the spending occurring five to ten years into the 10-15 year bill. So maybe spend $1.5T over the first five to 7 years (Manchin’s signal he might accept) and the rest not taking effect until 2027 or after. In turn, make the proposed tax hikes to pay for it to take effect in the latter years as well.

That way Pelosi can placate the progressive caucus and the Democrats can still say they passed a big ‘human infrastructure’ Reconciliation bill.  Backloading might then satisfy Manchin, Cuellar, Senema, and the party’s corporate wing. They can say they ‘won’, since the spending and taxing is only on paper. Republicans and McConnell will later cut the backload spending and delete the tax hikes once they take over again. That scenario could satisfy the Democrats’ corporate wing.

Another scenario may be for Pelosi not to hold a simultaneous dual vote because her progressive caucus won’t support a breaking out of the votes and will vote against the Infrastructure bill if held separate. In this case, Pelosi and the Democrats will then revert to the tried and true Democrat party ‘fall back’ message saying they’ll return to the vote on both bills after the 2022 midterms. That means everyone should vote for more Democrats in 2022 in order to pass both bills in 2023. But that’s a high risk strategy, since it will clearly appear that Biden and the Democrats can’t deliver on their election promises–especially if the US economic recovery is not robust by fall of 2022 due to lack of fiscal stimulus in fall of 2021, which is very likely since the current summer 2021 rebound of the economy already appears to be slowing.

So summing up: the three scenarios in the House are: Pelosi votes both bills up same time and they both pass; Pelosi renegs and holds separate votes and progressives vote down both bills; Pelosi and progressives agree on a ‘smoke & mirrors’ compromise and backload most of Reconciliation bill spending and taxing.

The first scenario almost ensures Manchin-Senema will never compromise and vote for Senate budget reconciliation on either bills. The second means Biden and Democrats are ‘toast’ in 2022 midterms. Something like the third may therefore be the most likely outcome.

Whatever the scenario, it was already decided by party leaders last week when Biden called Shumer and Pelosi into his office, reportedly in a closed door meeting that no one else attended.  Biden thereafter called in separately a group of progressives and then a group of ‘moderates’ (i.e. what the mainstream media calls the corporate wing). Reportedly both Shumer and Pelosi came out of the meeting smiling and upbeat. What did they agree to with Biden? Not even Democrat members in the House or Senate know, since Pelosi-Shumer aren’t even telling them.

It all should become clearer this coming week. But one thing is certain: the final $3.5T Reconciliation bill with its spending on human infrastructure and climate change will be either significantly reduced or backloaded into out years so that the spending & tax measures can be safely deleted.

The Democrat corporate wing is as adamantly opposed to the spending–and the tax hikes it would require–as are McConnell and his Republicans. Thousands of corporate lobbyists have invaded Washington D.C.  in recent months, with the single purpose of demanding the Democrats don’t touch the Trump tax cuts.  They have already convinced both Republicans and the Democrat’s corporate wing not to raise their taxes. So watch for ‘smoke & mirrors’ financing in a final, much reduced spending Reconciliation bill–just as the same was previously engineered with the Infrastructure bill.

*

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. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Matt Kenyon/Financial Times

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.

***

 

In October 2019, in a speech at an International Monetary Fund conference, former Bank of England governor Mervyn King warned that the world was sleepwalking towards a fresh economic and financial crisis that would have devastating consequences for what he called the “democratic market system”.

According to King, the global economy was stuck in a low growth trap and recovery from the crisis of 2008 was weaker than that after the Great Depression. He concluded that it was time for the Federal Reserve and other central banks to begin talks behind closed doors with politicians.

In the repurchase agreement (repo) market, interest rates soared on 16 September. The Federal Reserve stepped in by intervening to the tune of $75 billion per day over four days, a sum not seen since the 2008 crisis.

At that time, according to Fabio Vighi, professor of critical theory at Cardiff University, the Fed began an emergency monetary programme that saw hundreds of billions of dollars per week pumped into Wall Street.

Over the last 18 months or so, under the guise of a ‘pandemic’, we have seen economies closed down, small businesses being crushed, workers being made unemployed and people’s rights being destroyed. Lockdowns and restrictions have facilitated this process. The purpose of these so-called ‘public health measures’ has little to do with public health and much to do with managing a crisis of capitalism and ultimately the restructuring of the economy.

Neoliberalism has squeezed workers income and benefits, offshored key sectors of economies and has used every tool at its disposal to maintain demand and create financial Ponzi schemes in which the rich can still invest in and profit from. The bailouts to the banking sector following the 2008 crash provided only temporary respite. The crash returned with a much bigger bang pre-Covid along with multi-billion-dollar bailouts.

The dystopian ‘great reset’ that we are currently witnessing is a response to this crisis. This reset envisages a transformation of capitalism.

Fabio Vighi sheds light on the role of the ‘pandemic’ in all of this:

“… some may have started wondering why the usually unscrupulous ruling elites decided to freeze the global profit-making machine in the face of a pathogen that targets almost exclusively the unproductive (over 80s).”

Vighi describes how, in pre-Covid times, the world economy was on the verge of another colossal meltdown and chronicles how the Swiss Bank of International Settlements, BlackRock (the world’s most powerful investment fund), G7 central bankers and others worked to avert a massive impending financial meltdown.

The world economy was suffocating under an unsustainable mountain of debt. Many companies could not generate enough profit to cover interest payments on their own debts and were staying afloat only by taking on new loans. Falling turnover, squeezed margins, limited cashflows and highly leveraged balance sheets were rising everywhere.

Lockdowns and the global suspension of economic transactions were intended to allow the Fed to flood the ailing financial markets (under the guise of COVID) with freshly printed money while shutting down the real economy to avoid hyperinflation.

Vighi says:

“… the stock market did not collapse (in March 2020) because lockdowns had to be imposed; rather, lockdowns had to be imposed because financial markets were collapsing. With lockdowns came the suspension of business transactions, which drained the demand for credit and stopped the contagion. In other words, restructuring the financial architecture through extraordinary monetary policy was contingent on the economy’s engine being turned off.”

It all amounted to a multi-trillion bailout for Wall Street under the guise of COVID ‘relief’ followed by an ongoing plan to fundamentally restructure capitalism that involves smaller enterprises being driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies and global chains, thereby ensuring continued viable profits for these predatory corporations, and the eradication of millions of jobs resulting from lockdowns and accelerated automation.

Author and journalist Matt Taibbi noted in 2020:

“It retains all the cruelties of the free market for those who live and work in the real world, but turns the paper economy into a state protectorate, surrounded by a kind of Trumpian Money Wall that is designed to keep the investor class safe from fear of loss. This financial economy is a fantasy casino, where the winnings are real but free chips cover the losses. For a rarefied segment of society, failure is being written out of the capitalist bargain.”

The World Economic Forum says that by 2030 the public will ‘rent’ everything they require. This means undermining the right of ownership (or possibly seizing personal assets) and restricting consumer choice underpinned by the rhetoric of reducing public debt or ‘sustainable consumption’, which will be used to legitimise impending austerity as a result of the economic meltdown. Ordinary people will foot the bill for the ‘COVID relief’ packages.

If the financial bailouts do not go according to plan, we could see further lockdowns imposed, perhaps justified under the pretext of  ‘the virus’ but also ‘climate emergency’.

It is not only Big Finance that has been saved. A previously ailing pharmaceuticals industry has also received a massive bailout (public funds to develop and purchase the vaccines) and lifeline thanks to the money-making COVID jabs.

The lockdowns and restrictions we have seen since March 2020 have helped boost the bottom line of global chains and the e-commerce giants as well and have cemented their dominance. At the same time, fundamental rights have been eradicated under COVID government measures.

Capitalism and labour

Essential to this ‘new normal’ is the compulsion to remove individual liberties and personal freedoms. A significant part of the working class has long been deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ – such people were sacrificed on the altar of neo-liberalism. They lost their jobs due to automation and offshoring. Since then, this section of the population has had to rely on meagre state welfare and run-down public services or, if ‘lucky’, insecure low-paid service sector jobs.

What we saw following the 2008 crash was ordinary people being pushed further to the edge. After a decade of ‘austerity’ in the UK – a neoliberal assault on the living conditions of ordinary people carried out under the guise of reining in public debt following the bank bail outs – a leading UN poverty expert compared Conservative welfare policies to the creation of 19th-century workhouses and warned that, unless austerity is ended, the UK’s poorest people face lives that are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

Philip Alston, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty, accused ministers of being in a state of denial about the impact of policies. He accused them of the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”.

In another 2019 report, the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank laid the blame for more than 130,000 deaths in the UK since 2012 at the door of government policies. It claimed that these deaths could have been prevented if improvements in public health policy had not stalled as a direct result of austerity cuts.

Over the past 10 years in the UK, according to the Trussell Group, there has been rising food poverty and increasing reliance on food banks.

And in a damning report on poverty in the UK by Professor David Gordon of the University of Bristol, it was found that almost 18 million cannot afford adequate housing conditions, 12 million are too poor to engage in common social activities, one in three cannot afford to heat their homes adequately in winter and four million children and adults are not properly fed (Britain’s population is estimated at around 66 million).

Moreover, a 2015 report by the New Policy Institute noted that the total number of people in poverty in the UK had increased by 800,000, from 13.2 to 14.0 million in just two to three years.

Meanwhile, The Equality Trust in 2018 reported that the ‘austerity’ years were anything but austere for the richest 1,000 people in the UK. They had increased their wealth by £66 billion in one year alone (2017-2018), by £274 billion in five years (2013-2018) and had increased their total wealth to £724 billion – significantly more than the poorest 40% of households combined (£567 billion).

Just some of the cruelties of the ‘free market’ for those who live and work in the real world. And all of this hardship prior to lockdowns that have subsequently devastated lives, livelihoods and health, with cancer diagnoses and treatments and other conditions having been neglected due to the shutdown of health services.

During the current economic crisis, what we are seeing is many millions around the world being robbed of their livelihoods. With AI and advanced automation of production, distribution and service provision on the immediate horizon, a mass labour force will no longer be required.

It raises fundamental questions about the need for and the future of mass education, welfare and healthcare provision and systems that have traditionally served to reproduce and maintain labour that capitalist economic activity has required.

As the economic is restructured, labour’s relationship to capital is being transformed. If work is a condition of the existence of the labouring classes, then, in the eyes of capitalists, why maintain a pool of (surplus) labour that is no longer needed?

A concentration of wealth power and ownership is taking place as a result of COVID-related policies: according to research by Oxfam, the world’s billionaires gained $3.9 trillion while working people lost $3.7 trillion in 2020. At the same time, as large sections of the population head into a state of permanent unemployment, the rulers are weary of mass dissent and resistance. We are witnessing an emerging biosecurity surveillance state designed to curtail liberties ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to political protest and free speech.

The global implications are immense too. Barely a month into the COVID agenda, the IMF and World Bank were already facing a deluge of aid requests from developing countries that were asking for bailouts and loans. Ideal cover for rebooting the global economy via a massive debt crisis and the subsequent privatisation of national assets.

In 2020, World Bank Group President David Malpass stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns but such ‘help’ would be on condition that neoliberal reforms become further embedded. In other words, the de facto privatisation of states (affecting all nations, rich and poor alike), the (complete) erosion of national sovereignty and dollar-denominated debt leading to a further strengthening of US leverage and power.

In a system of top-down surveillance capitalism with an increasing section of the population deemed ‘unproductive’ and ‘useless eaters’, notions of individualism, liberal democracy and the ideology of free choice and consumerism are regarded by the elite as ‘unnecessary luxuries’ along with political and civil rights and freedoms.

We need only look at the ongoing tyranny in Australia to see where other countries could be heading. How quickly Australia was transformed from a ‘liberal democracy’ to a brutal totalitarian police state of endless lockdowns where gathering and protests are not to be tolerated.

Being beaten and thrown to the ground and fired at with rubber bullets in the name of protecting health makes as much sense as devastating entire societies through socially and economically destructive lockdowns to ‘save lives’.

It makes as much sense as mask-wearing and social-distancing mandates unsupported by science, misused and flawed PCR tests, perfectly healthy people being labelled as ‘cases’, deliberately inflated COVID death figures, pushing dangerous experimental vaccines in the name of health, ramping up fear, relying on Neil Ferguson’s bogus modelling, censoring debate about any of this and the WHO declaring a worldwide ‘pandemic’ based on a very low number of global ‘cases’ back in early 2020 (44,279 ‘cases’ and 1,440 supposed COVID deaths outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion).

There is little if any logic to this. But of course, If we view what is happening in terms of a crisis of capitalism, it might begin to make a lot more sense.

The austerity measures that followed the 2008 crash were bad enough for ordinary people who were still reeling from the impacts when the first lockdown was imposed.

The authorities are aware that deeper, harsher impacts as well as much more wide-ranging changes will be experienced this time around and seem adamant that the masses must become more tightly controlled and conditioned to their coming servitude.

*

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 Isa Esasi

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.

***

 

This article celebrates the amazing bravery of a physician and senior military officer attacking the evil stupidity and anti-science character of the public health establishment.  Standing up to the coercive mandates to force COVID vaccine shots for large segments of the population that have far more risks than benefits from them.  Notably children, those with natural immunity and healthy, young military personnel.  This hero needs massive public support.  She should become a shining example for all physicians to fight for both medical freedom and genuine science.

In this pandemic where truths are crowded out by propaganda and political insanity, it is critically important to credit a truly remarkable document by a courageous medical professional.

Here are highlights from such a document, well worth the attention of all those who genuinely have informed concerns about current COVID vaccines.

Physician and Army Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long is a rare, courageous truth-teller willing to probably jeopardize a military career for the greater good.  To try and steer the Department of Defense to policies that protect military personnel from dangerous and unnecessary COVID vaccines and defend our national defense.

Here is an initial observation: “Use of mRNA vaccines in our fighting force, presents a risk of undetermined magnitude, in a population in which less than 20 active-duty personnel out of 1.4 million, died of the underlying SARs- CoV-2.”  Statistical truths are routinely ignored by government officials mismanaging the pandemic.

Dr. Long focused on a now widely recognized health impact of current COVID vaccines, saying “vaccination with mRNA increases the risk of myocarditis.”  “Research shows that most individuals with myocarditis do not have any symptoms.  Complications of myocarditis include dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death and carries a mortality rate of 20% at one year and 50% at 5 years.  According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, “despite optimal medical management, overall mortality has not changed in the last 30 years.’”

‘We must establish a screening program to identify those at increased risk of myocarditis, i.e., those that have, received mRNA vaccinations with [Pfizer] or Moderna, or have any of the following symptoms chest pain, shortness of breath or palpitations”

With regard to the Pfizer vaccine,

“One of the primary ingredients of the Lipid Nanoparticle delivery system is “ALC 1035.”  This is a toxic material.  It “comprises between 30-50% of the total ingredients.” 

Among a number of serious possible effects is this reality: “Caution: Product has not been fully validated for medical applications.  For research use only.”  Also noted: “Other journals and scientific papers also denote that this particular ingredient has never been used in humans before.”  The Colonel correctly notes

“My assessment is that ALC 1035 is a known toxin with little study, specifically restricted to ‘research only’ and effectively has no prior [medical] use history.”

Another ingredient in the vaccine is a known toxic chemical: “Polyethylene Glycol is the active ingredient in antifreeze.”  There have been countless cases where people have been fatally poisoned with this chemical.  This comment by the Colonel is especially impressive:

“I cannot discern what form of alchemy Pfizer and the FDA have discovered that would make antifreeze into a healthful cure to the human body.”

Another important point is that “Moderna’s key ingredient, SM-102… is significantly more dangerous than the Pfizer ALC 3015.”  Noted is that “This Moderna ingredient is deadly.”

“I have also reviewed scientific data and peer reviewed studies that discuss, analyze results and conclude that natural immunity is at least as good if not far superior to any Covid Vaccine available at this time.”

Exactly correct.  Noted is that “natural immunity provides a 13-fold better protection against Covid 19 infections than any currently available Covid 19 Vaccine.”  The Colonel points out that the Department of Defense disinterest in recognizing that “a military member’s prior [natural] immunity to Covid 19; even where it may be demonstrated with a recent antibody test.”

Here is a detailed telling by the Colonel of recent empirical evidence she is personally informed about regarding the real health impacts of COVID vaccines on military people.  It is truly worth reading:

“I personally observed the most physically fit female Soldier I have seen in over 20 years in the Army, go from Colligate level athlete training for Ranger School, to being physically debilitated with cardiac problems, newly diagnosed pituitary brain tumor, thyroid dysfunction within weeks of getting vaccinated.  Several military physicians have shared with me their firsthand experience with a significant increase in the number of young Soldiers with migraines, menstrual irregularities, cancer, suspected myocarditis and reporting cardiac symptoms after vaccination.  Numerous Soldiers and DOD civilians have told me of how they were sick, bed-ridden, debilitated, and unable to work for days to weeks after vaccination.  I have also recently reviewed three flight crew members’ medical records, all of which presented with both significant and aggressive systemic health issues.  Today I received word of one fatality and two ICU cases on Fort Hood; the deceased was an Army pilot who could have been flying at the time.  All three pulmonary embolism events happened within 48 hours of their vaccination.  I cannot attribute this result to anything other than the Covid 19 vaccines as the source of these events.  Each person was in top physical condition before the inoculation and each suffered the event within 2 days post vaccination.  Correlation by itself does not equal causation; however, significant causal patterns do exist that raise correlation into a probable cause, and the burden to prove otherwise falls on the authorities such as the CDC, FDA, and pharmaceutical manufacturers.  I find the illnesses, injuries and fatalities observed to be the proximate and causal effect of the Covid 19 vaccinations.”

If only more physicians would have the good sense to make that last medically smart comment.

This statement is also important:

“I can report of knowing over fifteen military physicians and healthcare providers who have shared experiences of having their safety concerns ignored and being ostracized for expressing or reporting safety concerns as they relate to COVID vaccinations.”

And here are several correct observations on harmful vaccine impacts:

“None of the ordered Emergency Use Covid 19 vaccines can or will provide better immunity than an infection-recovered person [with natural immunity].  All [current] vaccines in the age group and fitness level of my patients, are more risky, harmful and dangerous than having no vaccine at all, whether a person is Covid recovered or facing a Covid 19 infection.  Direct evidence exists and suggests that all persons who have received a Covid 19 Vaccine are damaged in their cardiovascular system in an irreparable and irrevocable manner.  Due to the Spike protein production that is engineered into the user’s genome, each such recipient of the Covid 19 Vaccines already has micro clots in their cardiovascular system that present a danger to their health and safety.  That such micro clots over time will become bigger clots by the very nature of the shape and composition of the Spike proteins being produced and said proteins are found throughout the user’s body, including the brain.”

See this detailed account of vaccine induced blood problems.

As to the vaccine dangers for the military personnel the Colonel is responsible for:

“Flight crews present extraordinary risks to themselves and others given the equipment they operate, munitions carried thereon and areas of operation in close proximity to populated areas.”

And most importantly:

“I hereby recommend to the Secretary of Defense that all pilots, crew and flight personnel in the military service who required hospitalization from injection or received any Covid 19 vaccination be grounded similarly for further dispositive assessment.”

The Colonel, like some other brave and honest medical professionals, also stressed this: “We must evaluate and immediately implement alternatives to mRNA vaccines, to include Ivermectin (FDA approved 1996) …and Hydroxychloroquine (FDA approved 1955).”

To sum up, we have a highly educated and credentialed senior military officer stepping up to tell those above her and the public about the major risks of COVID vaccines for military personnel.

This physician strongly needs public support in the fight for pandemic truths.  What she has concluded is just as important for the public as for military leadership and personnel.  She has revealed the evil idiocy of the current public health establishment mindlessly pushing COVID vaccines for everyone.

*

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. Joel S. Hirschhorn has a doctorate in engineering but has worked on health issues for decades. He is the author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemics.  As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine.  As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers.  He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years.  He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors. He has lectured at many universities, including the Army War College.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews

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.

***

 

On 22 September 2020, André Vltchek, quietly passed away – on a night-ride from the Black Sea in Turkey to Istanbul, accompanied by his wife, Rossie. He just fell asleep in the back seat of a chauffeur-driven car and didn’t wake up. His legacy is diverse, heavy in substance and revealing – revealing about the world, about the dark forces that command the world. He never really referred to them as “dark forces” because for him the wars he investigated, photographed, the conflicts he witnessed, the misery he experienced and filmed – was real. The “Dark Forces” came to the surface – no shade, no cover – but NO LIGHT.

André was always there where it was burning – or where there was great danger that soon it might burn – and the population blown apart.

We had some remarkable experiences together on the Greek island of Kos, following the refugee tracks. Refugees from Turkey – to Greece – to the European Union. Their sad fate in refugee camps with the most horrifying sanitary conditions – their patience – their HOPE – hope is what makes these refugees tick and breath. Not just those that come from the Middle East and Africa, to seek a better future mostly for their children in lush and wealthy Europe. Refugees all over the world live from hope. If we lose hope, life ends…

Similarly, we visited Puno in Peru, and from there to Rinconada – the world’s highest gold mine, a series of many small and large independent gold mines – controlled by a deadly mafia – some 5,100 – 5,400 m above sea level – indescribable conditions, of cold and misery – some 70,000 people are living there – in extreme destitution, but all on a voluntary basis, all in the hope to finally “hit the riches” – GOLD. They work for 29 days a month for free – and what they find on the 30^th or 31^st day – they may keep.  That’s an old mining law that is still the rule for many of the Andean mines.

No heat, no running water – girls of all ages make a living as prostitutes to uncountable miners, who leave their families behind – well, in the HOPE to get rich. Huge fields of garbage – endless plastic waste – and ever-so-often in the midst of such mountains of waste – a cross protrudes – a grave.

These are some of the experiences André and I lived together. They created a bond – and throughout the years we knew each other from writing from exchanging ideas – – friendship in the virtual world, practiced in the real world – philosophizing during half a night in a cheap café in Athens – are unforgotten; their richness cannot be taken away – André, you are dearly missed.

May your soul rest in Peace.

And remember: VENCEREMOS!

Here is Andre Vltchek’s archive on Global Research.

*

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.

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.

***

 

Multiple sources in The HighWire’s network of Frontline Physicians, have reported an alarming uptick in aggressive cancers post-Covid vaccination.

Could there be a link?

Pathologist Ryan Cole, MD, discusses the available science and his lab’s findings.

*

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 Highwire

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 Israelis Have Now Admitted the Impotence of the “vaccine” on TV news: see this.

If the “Covid Pandemic” is real, why have Denmark, Norway, and Sweden abolished all Covid restrictions and declared an end to the crisis? See this. 

What explains the Vaccine Mandates?  It is known that the vaccine does not protect—thus masks and booster shots—but it does kill and maim.  Why are they determined to kill and maim us?

Three Thousand Doctors and Scientists want to know why they are being prevented from treating their patients with safe and effective medicines.

Over 3,000 Doctors and Scientists Sign Declaration Accusing COVID Policy-Makers of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, see this. 

The answer seems to be profit for Big Pharma and authoritarian control for government.

On ABC with George Stehanapoulos Pfizer CEO Albert Boula said henceforth normal life consists of annual booster shots. See this.

Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel agrees.  He says there will be Covid booster shots forever. See this.

The gravy train is forever.

And so are the injuries and deaths from the vaccine.

45% of the FDA’s Annual Budget Comes from Big Pharma

The regulators are financially dependent on those they are supposed to regulate.  Economist George Stigler pointed out decades ago that regulatory agencies are always captured by the industry they regulate.  Regulators become facilitators  and agents for the regulated.

See this.

Some New Yorkers Belatedly Wake Up and Protest Vaccination Mandate by Democrat Governor Who Has No Authority to Issue Mandates, see this. 

Health Care Workers Who Have Witnessed Deaths and Disabilities from Vaccine Refuse The Death Shot

That should tell you something.  Why do people take the Death Shot when health care workers have to be coerced into taking it? See this.

*

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 frequent 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The US Congress invited neoconservative regime-change strategists to discuss the next stage of hybrid warfare on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, which will likely involve creating an economic blockade, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of President Daniel Ortega, and borrowing tactics the Trump administration used in its coup attempt in Venezuela.

A House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on September 21 set out plans for the next phase of the United States’ hybrid warfare on Nicaragua, which aims to destabilize and ultimately overthrow the Central American nation’s leftist Sandinista government.

The event featured hardline neoconservative members of Congress, a senior State Department official, a prominent Nicaraguan regime-change activist, and the former president of Costa Rica.

The carefully staged spectacle made it clear that Washington will be expanding its brutal economic war on Nicaragua as the country’s general elections approach in November. This will take the form of more aggressive financial sanctions, through legislation called the RENACER Act. These sanctions could potentially expand into a de facto blockade modeled after the US embargo of Venezuela.

US officials stated explicitly that Washington will refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the November elections. The panelists also suggested that the Joe Biden administration may even refuse to recognize the legitimacy of President Daniel Ortega and the Nicaraguan government itself, and will pressure other countries in Latin America to cut diplomatic ties as well.

The hearing indicates that the Biden administration plans to repurpose many of the same tactics that the Donald Trump administration employed in the coup attempt it initiated against Venezuela in 2019, such as refusing to recognize the constitutional government of President Nicolás Maduro, appointing unelected US asset Juan Guaidó as supposed “interim president,” and broadening the sanctions initiated by the Barack Obama administration into a full-on economic blockade.

While the Biden administration is continuing the hard-line anti-Nicaragua posture taken by Trump, the State Department officials crafting these policies appear to know very little about the country.

As she spewed inflammatory rhetoric demonizing the Sandinista government as “authoritarian,” US Deputy Assistant Secretary Emily Mendrala comically referred to Nicaragua as an “island,” leading a member of Congress to correct her for apparently confusing the Central American nation with Haiti.

As she plotted ways to suffocate Nicaragua with sanctions and overthrow its Sandinista government, US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary @EMendrala called it an "island"…

Shows how little they know about the countries they're trying to destroy: https://t.co/deKFHKlurF pic.twitter.com/tqO9OR3RXF

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 25, 2021

Other participants made similarly absurd comments, demonstrating their ignorance of the reality on the ground in Latin America. Congressman Juan Vargas, for instance, farcically insisted that Fidel Castro, who died in 2016, is still alive and in power in Cuba, and “he’s been there a long time.”

While the event represented a laughable display of colonial arrogance, the consequences of Washington’s emerging agenda are likely to have serious consequences for Nicaragua and its people. Indeed, the State Department has emphasized that the Biden administration is working closely with the European Union, Canada, Costa Rica, and the Organization of American States (OAS) to destabilize the Sandinista government.

Together, they plan to expel Nicaragua from the OAS and isolate it diplomatically. They also hope to cut off the country’s trade with the United States and starve it economically.

The overblown rhetoric spouted by the panelists was complemented with fear-mongering about Russia’s alliance with Nicaragua, which they referred to with classic colonial framing as “the US doorstep.”

The hearing also highlighted a growing and increasingly influential right-wing Nicaraguan-American lobby, and its direct coordination with extremist Cuban-American elements in Florida.

LIVE NOW – join to hear @HouseForeign question @BertaValle, @RyanBergPhD, @Laura_Ch, and @StateDept’s Emily Mendrala about U.S. strategy toward Nicaragua.https://t.co/Nlf00vLNvo

— House Foreign Affairs Committee (@HouseForeign) September 21, 2021

US Congress pledges more aggressive sanctions on Nicaragua

This 2021, the Nicaraguan government arrested a series of right-wing opposition activists who orchestrated a violent coup attempt that devastated the country’s economy and society in 2018.

During the failed putsch, extremists waged a campaign of terror in Nicaragua, hunting down Sandinista activists, injuring, torturing, and killing hundreds. For months, criminal elements erected dozens of barricades known as tranques, in various parts of the country, while waging a low-intensity civil war against the Sandinista government.

President Daniel Ortega recognized that the US-backed coup-mongers were intentionally stoking violence, and wanted to invite a government crackdown that they could use to justify international intervention – a strategy that Hong Kong separatists openly advocated in a similarly failed US-backed destabilization operation.

So Ortega ordered police not to leave their stations, which led the foreign-funded coup-mongers to besiege Nicaraguan police stations and try to kill as many security forces as possible.

The powerful political and economic figures behind this bloody coup attempt finally faced legal consequences in 2021, and were arrested by the Nicaraguan government.

Yet the US government was furious at these detentions, because Washington had cultivated, trained, and funded these coup leaders, over years and with millions of dollars.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on September 21, titled “An International Response to Ortega’s Destruction of Democracy in Nicaragua,” was occasion for the US government to announce its plans to punish the Sandinista government for arresting its Nicaraguan assets.

The meeting was hosted by Representative Albio Sires, a right-wing Cuban-American Democrat who had joined Florida’s neoconservative former Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in writing the NICA Act, legislation that called for a de facto financial blockade of the Sandinista government.

Today, I held a @HouseForeign hearing on the corrupt Ortega regime’s actions to prevent competitive elections, eliminate the political opposition, and imprison anyone who stands in their way in #Nicaragua. See my opening statement:https://t.co/0n82YmCVVs

— Albio Sires (@RepSires) September 21, 2021

The NICA Act was passed in December 2018, without any opposition in Congress. The bill represented the first round of crushing US sanctions on Nicaragua.

Sires and his neoconservative colleagues in the Congress are however not content with the economic warfare that Washington is already waging against Nicaragua. They want more.

In the September 21 hearing, he called for the US government and European Union to impose even more aggressive sanctions on Nicaragua and “begin preparing a number of severe diplomatic consequences,” including suspending the country from the Inter-American Democratic Charter and Organization of American States.

Sires is the co-sponsor of a follow-up to the NICA Act, known as the RENACER Act, which will expand the unilateral coercive measures targeting Nicaragua’s economy, while also ratcheting up US spy operations in the country.

In the Senate, the legislation has been spearheaded by Bob Menendez, another right-wing Cuban American Democrat who played a significant role in the US-backed coup in Bolivia in 2019, as well as Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican representative of far-right Cuban-Americans in Miami.

Menendez and Rubio have lobbied hard to expand US sanctions and increase aggressive tactics against Nicaragua, using the OAS to punish the country.

This June, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the RENACER act, although it has yet to be officially voted on.

The September 21 hearing made it clear that, despite protests by peace activists in Washington, the RENACER will soon be rammed through Congress with little opposition, thus escalating the US economic war on Nicaragua.

Now at US Capitol, a protest against the Renacer Act, which aims to destabilize Nicaragua and remove its elected govt through economic warfare.

The sanctions build on the US-backed 2018 insurrection attempt that saw right-wing gangs target Sandinistas with torture & murder. pic.twitter.com/yzbwD3IAQg

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 13, 2021

Joined Sires in the meeting was committee ranking member Mark Green, a Republican representing Tennessee who is co-sponsoring the RENACER Act.

While Green was unable to pronounce the names of the US-backed Nicaraguan coup leaders he described as “political prisoners,” he revealed that members of the Foreign Affairs Committee “regularly meet” with figures from the right-wing anti-Sandinista opposition to coordinate tactics.

Florida Republican Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar, a Cuban-American representative of the most fanatical far-right forces in Miami, also held forth during the hearing.

Salazar insisted that Washington must intervene much more aggressively in Latin America, claiming, “The United States is not present in this hemisphere! Period.”

Salazar held up photos of Felix Maradiaga, Arturo Cruz, and Juan Sebastián Chamorro, US government-backed Nicaraguan regime-change activists who played a crucial role leading the violent 2018 coup attempt.

Far-right Florida Congresswoman María Elvira Salazar holding up photos of US-funded coup leaders Felix Maradiaga and Arturo Cruz at a hearing on Nicaragua

Representatives Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, and Juan Vargas, a Democrat from California, joined the chorus of condemnation as well.

Vargas lamented that US regime-change operations targeting Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have repeatedly failed, complaining, “We do a whole lot of things to try to get rid of them, and we’re not very successful… We did a whole lot of damn things against all these guys, and they still seem to survive.”

In a comment that showed how little he actually knows about Latin America, Vargas then suggested that Fidel Castro, who died five years ago, is still alive and has “been there a long time. I mean we wanted to get rid of him for a long time. We’ve done lots of things to try to get rid of him, but we can’t get rid of him.”

US State Department vows escalation against Nicaragua

The deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, Emily Mendrala, spoke proudly in the September 21 hearing about Washington’s political attacks on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

“We continue to work with governments throughout the region, through the OAS and otherwise, to continue” putting pressure on Nicaragua, she said. “We are also working closely with the EU, Canada, and the UK to coordinate additional targeted measures.”

Mendrala “welcomed the bipartisanship” in the campaign against Nicaragua, and boasted that the US government has maintained support for right-wing opposition activists and media outlets, stating, “Through USAID, we continue to support Nicaraguan civil society, independent media, and human rights defenders.”

She also revealed that the US State Department “launched a social media campaign in August” against the Sandinista government.

Mendrala went on to take credit for a June statement in the OAS condemning Nicaragua. “Through US leadership, we were we were able to secure a very important coalition of 26 member states” to support the anti-Nicaragua OAS resolution, she said.

Quoting Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Mendrala claimed that Nicaragua’s “electoral process, including its eventual results, has lost all credibility,” making it clear that Washington will not recognize them.

Reading closely from written statements accusing Nicaragua of using “Russian-inspired laws to carry out repression,” Mendrala’s comments reflected the neoconservative tenor of the Biden State Department.

Rep. Mark Green interjected to chastise Mendrala for insufficiently zealous rhetoric.

“I would encourage you to say ‘the Ortega regime,’ because I’m not sure that it’s really legitimate,” the Republican said. “In fact, I think it’s not, I’m convinced it’s not a legitimate government.”

At one point, Mendrala even mistakenly referred to Nicaragua as an “island,” raising questions about her knowledge of the region’s most basic geographical contours.

“You called Nicaragua an island a minute ago,” Rep. Andy Levin corrected Mendrala. “I think you’re referring to the poorest country in the atmosphere, Haiti.”

US President Barack Obama with Costa Rica President Laura Chinchilla in 2013

Costa Rica’s former president calls for escalating hybrid warfare on Nicaragua

The inclusion of Costa Rica’s neoliberal former President Laura Chinchilla in the Congressional hearing reflected the Biden administration’s close coordination with Nicaragua’s US-backed neighbor to destabilize the Sandinista government.

Chinchilla echoed the extreme commentary of her US counterparts, citing “Ortega’s military strategy of increasing cooperation with Russia” to dub Nicaragua “a threat to regional security.”

The Costa Rican leader said Nicaragua must be expelled from the OAS, and called for a de facto economic blockade, “in order to stop immediately the external supply of financial oxygen to the Ortega regime.”

She also called for targeting the military, noting that “the Nicaraguan army [is] a key player in the endurance of the regime.” This was a not-so-subtle hint that Washington should curry favor with Nicaraguan generals to try to overthrow President Ortega.

Drawing on a US strategy used against Venezuela, Chinchilla then suggested that Washington should charge top Nicaraguan government officials with “money laundering and drug trafficking,” a patently absurd accusation.

She also suggested Washington should “deny legitimacy to the government” of Nicaragua, again echoing the US tactic of refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Venezuela’s constitutional government.

Today, Chinchilla is co-chair of the influential DC-based lobby group the Inter-American Dialogue. This February, she participated in a panel of neoliberal Central American officials at the corporate-backed think tank. It was joined by Biden’s special envoy to the region, Ricardo Zúñiga, and convened to cement the administration’s Central America policy.

The February event had hinted at tactics Washington and its regional clients would use to destabilize Nicaragua, including potentially recognizing US government-funded multimillionaire oligarch Cristiana Chamorro as a Juan Guaidó-style “interim president.” (The Sandinista government foiled those plans by arresting Chamorro on charges on money laundering.)

Rubio tuvo el honor de reunirse con las esposas de @Jschamorrog y Felix @Maradiaga, quienes permanecen arbitrariamente desaparecidos por el régimen de #Ortega. Nos unimos a la lucha de estas valientes mujeres y su pedido para que liberen a sus esposos de inmediato. #SOSNicaragua pic.twitter.com/dVWDevyebO

— Senator Rubio Press (@SenRubioPress) July 20, 2021

Elite right-wing Nicaraguan regime-change activist lobbies for more aggressive actions

Also starring in the Congressional hearing was right-wing Nicaraguan activist Berta Valle, the wife of coup leader Felix Maradiaga, a US-trained political operative who played a major role in the failed 2018 coup attempt.

Maradiaga, who grew up and was educated in the United States, has long been cultivated by the US government with the goal of destabilizing the Sandinista government.

Although his support base in his homeland is tiny, and he is despised by Sandinista supporters who hold him responsible for destabilizing the country over three years ago, Maradiaga has remained a top US government asset.

Incubated in the bowels of elite corporate-funded neoliberal institutions like the World Economic Forum, Maradiaga has led a series of NGOs and think tanks, such as the Institute for Strategic Studies and Public Policy (IEEPP), which use plentiful funding from CIA cutouts to wage hybrid warfare against the Nicaraguan government.

US-funded Nicaraguan coup leader Felix Maradiaga and his wife Berta Valle at the World Economic Forum

Like her husband, Valle was trained by the World Economic Forum, a notorious symbol of the global financial oligarchy. Valle is a proud part of the WEF’s Global Shapers Community, an international initiative to create neoliberal leaders who then push right-wing policies around the world that benefit the large corporations and billionaire plutocrats who fund the WEF.

A privileged member of Nicaragua’s miniscule class of wealthy elites, Valle made her name as a media personality at the country’s major right-wing outlets, such as Vos TV.

In her testimony in the Congressional hearing, Valle acknowledged that the Nicaraguan “government is alleging that Felix [Maradiaga] and others were part of a global conspiracy to use foreign resources, including from the US Agency for International Development, the International Republican Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy, to harm the interests of the nation.”

That they did this is undeniable; it is an objective fact. Public records show that the organizations led by Maradiaga, such as IEEPP, have received huge sums of money from these CIA cutouts.

Here is top USAID/NED "pro-democracy" grantee Felix Maradiaga (white shirt) at Nicaragua's UPOLI with fellow coup planners including Pio Arellano, accused member of Viper criminal network waving a pistol in the air. pic.twitter.com/uqigHnYqTu

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) August 8, 2018

It is quite ironic that Valle mentioned these charges as if they were ludicrous, because the Nicaraguan justice system’s accusations against Maradiaga and other US-backed coup leaders were in fact confirmed by what the State Department official, Mendrala, said in the very same hearing.

Moreover, the State Department itself boasted in a public statement on September 14 that “the U.S. Government continues to support civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and independent media” in Nicaragua. Valle’s husband Maradiaga has been one of the top recipients of this foreign material support.

In her remarks, Valle also revealed that she has been coordinating with top members of the US government, and insisted on more US meddling in Nicaragua.

In July, Valle and other right-wing Nicaraguans traveled to Washington to meet with members of Congress, including Marco Rubio.

Today, Valle lives in the United States, and, with the active support of the US government, has been working to construct an anti-Sandinista Nicaraguan-American lobby to complement the power of the anti-revolution Cuban political machine in Miami. Already, her efforts and those of her patrons in Washington are bearing fruit, with an escalated economic war on her country of birth.

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

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 following article from Before It’s News features a 41-minute interview with Dr. Bryan Ardis, CEO of Ardis Labs.

In this interview with Brannon Howse, Dr. Ardis reveals to us shocking information. As early as October 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew that the COVID vaccines could lead to numerous side effects including Guillain-Barré syndrome, myocarditis/pericarditis, autoimmune disease, pregnancy and birth outcomes, thrombocytopenia, and vaccine enhanced disease. Despite knowing this, the FDA did not disclose this information to the public. Instead, the health agency only released information on minor side effects.

Some of the other points discussed in the interview include:

• Remdesevir has caused a lot of deaths among COVID patients. There are evidences showing that Remdesevir is toxic [also see New study: WHO data shows Remdesevir causes serious bradycardia among COVID-19 patients].
• The media was underestimating the issue of blood clots following Johnson & Johnson vaccination. When the media was reporting only six cases, there were already hundreds recorded in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
• Pfizer and Moderna had the same issues as Johnson & Johnson. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not raise the issue with Pfizer, even though it caused more blood clots compared to Johnson & Johnson, because it would risk raising concerns with Moderna which uses the same technology. In this way, Dr. Ardis said that the CDC sought to protect Moderna’s profit.

Towards the end of the interview, Dr. Ardis offered some recommendations on how the vaccinated can counter the impact of the vaccines as well as protect their unvaccinated family members from the shedding of toxic compounds coming from the vaccines [also read COVID vaccine researcher admits says spike protein is a dangerous toxin and Salk Institute: The spike protein damages cells and causes vascular disease even without a virus].

---

Note from COVID Call to Humanity: We took some time before publishing this video because we wanted to cross-check Dr. Ardis’ claims. And true enough, the contentious “slide 16” is still up on the FDA’s website. View the presentation being referred to by Dr. Ardis at https://www.fda.gov/media/143557/download or read the transcript of that meeting here https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download. These two documents are also available for download below.

---

From these documents, especially “slide 16/17” it is clear that the FDA knew the extent of possible adverse effects that the COVID vaccines can cause, but chose to hide it from the public. While they say that these adverse events were “rare”, the public should have been told about these possible risks. Sanitizing this information, and telling people only about the “mild and more common” effects is a violation of informed consent.

There is only one reason why the FDA would choose to hide the “serious but less common” side effects: they didn’t want people to be afraid of the vaccines. They wanted as many people as possible to take it. But knowing that millions are already injured following vaccination, can we still say that hiding and denying this information was still in the best interest of the public? Why does it seem like it is our governments who are actually following the dictates of pharmaceutical companies? Why is our government using taxpayer’s money to advertise dangerous vaccines? Are they profiting from these efforts?

*

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.

***

 

Protests have finally erupted in Israel as it has slowly dawned on people there that the goalposts for vaccine passports keep being shifted by the government.

It is now expected to be announced that at least FOUR vaccinations will be needed to be considered ‘fully vaccinated’ and able to engage in society.

Over the weekend marches took place in the streets of Tel Aviv against the so called ‘Green Pass’:

Protest in Tel Aviv, Israel against govt health pass. pic.twitter.com/CYb9uG0gij

— 🧢מאק (@beingrealmac) September 26, 2021

HUGE PROTEST ISRAEL TEL AVIV: NO GREEN PASS COVID RESTRICTIONS. Protesters demonstrate against vaccine coercion, green passports in Tel Aviv #NoGreenPass #Manifs25septembre #telaviv #israel #leica #leicaq2 pic.twitter.com/Da7mckcEb1

— Dmitri Bluglass (@dbluglass) September 26, 2021

Predictably, the media labeled the protesters ‘right wing extremists’ and anti-vaxxers:

אלפי פעילי ימין צועדים כעת בת"א במחאה נגד ממשלת בנט @KastelMoti pic.twitter.com/7s4tBrn3zb

— ערוץ 20 (@arutz20) September 23, 2021

As we recently noted, despite over 61 per cent of its population being fully vaccinated and having implemented a vaccine passport system, the Israeli Health Ministry has expressed concern about the fact that a recent downtrend in COVID-19 infections is reversing, potentially surpassing any levels previously seen.

Israeli health minister Nitzan Horowitz was caught on a hot mic admitting that vaccine passports were primarily about coercing skeptical people to get the vaccine and not for medical reasons.

*

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

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.

***

 

Back in July of this year we reported that Ohio-based Attorney Thomas Renz was filing a federal lawsuit in Alabama based on a “sworn declaration, under threat of perjury,” from an alleged whistleblower who claims to have inside knowledge of a cover-up of reported deaths filed with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

See: Attorney Files Lawsuit Against CDC Based on “Sworn Declaration” from Whistleblower Claiming 45,000 Deaths are Reported to VAERS – All Within 3 Days of COVID-19 Shots

Attorney Renz spoke at an event in Colorado this past weekend, and stated that more whistleblowers have now come forward, and that the death rate with those taking the COVID-19 vaccines is much higher than they originally thought.

Presenting data that he claims comes directly from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) database, there have been 48,465 deaths among CMS beneficiaries within 14 days of a 1st or 2nd dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.

There are about 59.4 million Americans covered by Medicare, representing 18.1% of the population, so these are staggering numbers!

In his presentation, Renz states that they chose deaths within 14 days of vaccination, because the federal health agencies are no longer counting deaths within 14 days of a COVID-19 as a death among the “vaccinated,” but among “unvaccinated.”

Renz also presented very damning data on the drug Remdesivir, the new COVID-19 drug that was rushed to market while existing, safe and effective older drugs like Ivermectin are prohibited in hospital settings.

According to CMS data, almost 26% of people put on Remdesivir die. But it is a huge money maker for the government and Big Pharma.

By contrast, only 3.5% of people put on Ivermectin died, according to CMS data. But there are no longer any patents on Ivermectin, so it is not a money maker for the government and Big Pharma.

As attorney Renz states: “You’re being defrauded by your government!”

He also goes on to show what are allegedly documents from Pfizer that seem to suggest they knew that “shedding” occurred with their COVID-19 mRNA shots.

Here is the presentation. I have excerpted the key data he presented. This is from our Bitchute channel, and it will also be on our Rumble 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.

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.

***

 

Former 2017 Davis Cup winner tennis player Jeremy Chardy recently announced he could no longer compete in professional tennis this year due to the crippling effects of the Pfizer COVID-19 shot. RT.com reports:

A tennis star has admitted he does not know when he will return to the sport and fears he may have to bring forward his retirement because of health problems he says he has suffered since taking the Pfizer Covid vaccine.

World number 73 Jeremy Chardy has become the latest tennis star to speak out against vaccines after experiencing what he describes as violent, near-paralyzing pains across his body since taking the jab, warning that there is “no hindsight” once people have received the treatment.

The 34-year-old says he his priority is to “take care of myself” after seeing two doctors and taking tests in a bid to deduce why he has found physical exertion so difficult since being vaccinated.

“Suddenly I cannot train, I cannot play,” the 2017 Davis Cup winner told AFP, explaining that he received the jab between this summer’s Olympics, when he was beaten by gold medalist Alex Zverev in the quarterfinals, and the US Open, when he lost in straight sets in the first round to Matteo Berrettini at the end of August.

“In my head, it’s difficult because I do not know how long it will last. For the moment, my season is stopped and I do not know when I will resume.

“It’s frustrating because I started the year really well, I was playing really well. And then I went to the Games, where I felt great too.

“And now my season is at a standstill and I do not know when I will resume. It is especially frustrating that I do not have ten years to play… suddenly, now I regret having had the vaccine, but I could not know [what the consequences would be].” (Source.)

Unlike other professional sports leagues that claim a high percentage of its players are now fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 shot, professional tennis has only about a 50% rate of those who have taken the shot, and some of the sport’s top players have said they do not intend to take it. RT.com reports:

The ATP men’s tour has said its players are “just above 50% vaccinated,” while the WTA women’s tour has said that “nearly 50%” of its stars had received the jab.

The world’s top four male players – Novak Djokovic, Daniil Medvedev, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev – have all spoken at some point about their reluctance to be vaccinated.

“Personally I’m opposed to vaccination, and I wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine in order to be able to travel,”said Djokovic earlier this year.

Russian star Medvedev, who beat Djokovic to become the first Russian man to win a major tournament since 2005 in New York on Sunday, has claimed he would not be getting jabbed “for medical reasons related to vaccines”.

Elsewhere, Greek world number three Tsitsipas caused a storm when he remarked that he didn’t “see any reason for someone of my age to do it – it hasn’t been tested enough, and it has side effects,” before adding “everyone can decide for themselves.” 

German Olympic champion Zverev is also believed to be unvaccinated, and took a similar line in stressing that everyone “should act as they see fit” and that it’s “easy to be misunderstood, whatever you say” as the issue had become “too political” for his liking.

Coincidentally, three of that rebel quartet were US Open semi-finalists this month, which meant that all but one, Felix Auger-Aliassime, who is still yet to confirm his view, had either raised concerns about the jab or stated they refuse to take it.

Conversely, any tennis fan who wanted to watch the recent action in New York had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get into Flushing Meadows, after the United States Tennis Association mandated that spectators needed to provide proof of their Covid vaccination, while players weren’t required whatsoever.

[Woman’s] world number two Aryna Sabalenka said in March she doesn’t “really trust” vaccination as “they just make it, like really quick, and there wasn’t enough time to test it and to see what can happen.”

“I don’t want my family to take it. If I have to do it, then, of course, I have to do it because our life is a travel life,” she added.

The Belarusian star is joined by world number four Elina Svitolina, who said it “makes almost, like, no sense to do something that has been tested for such a short period of time.” (Source.)

If mandatory COVID-19 shots are required in the future for these players to compete, how many will risk their health and their lives to continue competing in their sport? I seriously doubt that the Globalists who own these professional sports leagues will allow unvaccinated players to continue competing much longer, because it will soon become obvious who are the better athletes, vaccinated or unvaccinated.

What is the future for all professional sports leagues as those receiving the COVID-19 shots now comprise millions of deaths and injuries, with booster shots now being rushed to market, even over the objections of regulatory bodies like the FDA and CDC?

Unless there are special injections just for professional athletes that are basically placebos, it is hard to imagine these leagues lasting much longer.

*

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 HIN

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 Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has issued a legal warning letter to the Ontario Government on behalf of four clients demanding the vaccine passport mandate be revoked immediately. The law requires Ontarians as young as 12 to provide proof of two doses of the Covid mRNA vaccination as of September 22, 2021, or be denied access to a wide range of businesses and organizations, including field trips to city facilities. The Justice Centre has notified the Province that it will file a legal action should Ontario fail to halt its unconstitutional discrimination against those who have not yet chosen to receive the experimental vaccines.

Since the vaccine passport has been announced, the Justice Centre has received hundreds of emails from Ontarians concerned about loss of employment, loss of ability to worship, and denial of access to restaurants, bars, gyms, sporting events, meeting and event spaces, and more, unless they show proof of their confidential medical status of vaccination.

Ontario’s Ministry of Health has stated that the government will only recognize two medical exemptions for vaccine passports: one for those who are allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine, with verification provided by an allergist, and another for those who experienced myocarditis or pericarditis after the first dose of a vaccine. There has been no provision for exemptions based on religion and creed, both protected grounds under the Charter and Human Rights Act.

Covid mRNA vaccination shots are new, with no long-term safety profile, and clinical trials will not be complete until 2023. As such, the Covid shots are experimental. Canadians have the right to informed consent, and the right to be fully informed about the side effects of the Covid vaccine, which has known side effects. The vaccine manufacturers have stated there is no data on the vaccine’s effects on fertility, or their safety for pregnant women or children. Emerging data unequivocally establishes that the Delta variant spreads freely in the fully vaccinated population, and there are emerging links to miscarriages in pregnant women and a demonstrated risk of heart inflammation in teenage males.

On their face, vaccine passports are an infringement of Canadians’ constitutionally protected rights to freedom of conscience, the right to liberty and security of the person, and the right to be equal before the law. Based on these guarantees, every Canadian has the right to bodily autonomy and to decide what medical procedure to accept or reject. The demand letter asserts that mandatory vaccination for Covid constitutes a significant, unwarranted and profound infringement on the rights of Canadians that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.

“Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person. Ontarians should not be coerced or pressured by the government into submitting to a medical intervention to which they do not consent. Informed consent and the right to bodily autonomy are two principles that our laws have long protected. It will be a tragedy to see Ontarians, including children, being coerced to take the vaccine, or else be socially marginalized,” says Jorge Pineda, Staff Lawyer at the Justice Centre.

Individuals who have not been vaccinated for a variety of reasons, including religious belief, creed, and medical issues or concerns over serious side effects, will effectively be segregated and marginalized. Their participation in society will become limited to what is deemed “essential” by the government.

“The new mandate will have the effect of segregating individuals and especially young children from mainstream society. Mandating a system that denies Canadian’s access to certain services that are arbitrarily defined as nonessential by the government creates a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous descent into a medical dictatorship,” notes Justice Centre staff lawyer Henna Parmar.

“If we do not put an end to these measures, we will be putting unlimited power in the hands of the government to dictate what medical care we receive, what drugs we take, and what privileges they will allow us that should be fundamental rights,” adds Ms. Parmar.

*

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 JCCF

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.

***

 

“No doubt concentration camps were a means, a menace used to keep order.”—Albert Speer, Nuremberg Trials

It’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.

This is what we know: the government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with taxpayer dollars.

It’s just a matter of time.

It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be (vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or which party is wielding its power like a hammer.

The groundwork has already been laid.

Under the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President and the military can detain and imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if the government believes them to be a terrorist.

So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the government or objecting to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.

After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.

For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

Military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may also be characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats by the government because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to the FBI, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories or dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s.

The government also has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.

This is what happens when you not only put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.

It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.

It’s happened before.

As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.

One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents, could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to maintain “order” in the homeland.

The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.

Although that Korematsu decision was never formally overturned, Chief Justice Roberts opined in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) that “the forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.”

Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits its purposes. Pointing out that such blatantly illegal detentions could happen again—with the blessing of the courts—Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.”

In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s disaster relief agencies into one large agency.

During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.

FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps is well-documented.

But be careful who you share this information with: it turns out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite detention under the NDAA. Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps, opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with “mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization, and ammunition stockpiling.

Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil, someone has to build them.

Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”

Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political dissidents.

So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.

As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.

Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,” which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,” which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.

Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and extremist interchangeably.

That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”

These reports indicate that for the government, so-called extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is a target, which brings us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e., anyone critical of the government.

The short answer is: yes.

The longer answer is more complicated.

Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as those who abide by it.

However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.

Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism.

Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.

We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.

Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for indefinite detention by our own government.

Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search and question anyone—ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile—they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you, in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the birds to growing exotic orchids).

Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.

Indeed, it’s happening already, with police relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.

It turns out that we are Soylent Green, being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop out of us.

The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted, starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation for survival.

Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population. “It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be breeding us like cattle for food.”

Oh, how right he was.

Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.

Without constitutional protections in place to guard against encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G. Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts, words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.

We’re not quite there yet, but as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that moment of reckoning is getting closer by the minute.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

There is no question about it, the vaccines are dangerous. While tens of millions of Americans have been duped into getting the jabs, tens of millions more are skeptical, to say the least.

It would appear their skepticism is justified. Several doctors from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave startling testimony on Friday during a hearing on the COVID-19 vaccines. One of the highlights of this testimony was the allegation that the vaccines are actually killing more people than they are saving.

The doctors also said that the COVID “variants” are being driven by the vaccines, a conclusion those of us with working brains have already arrived at.

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee ultimately voted 16-2 after 8 hours of testimony, shooting down Joe Biden’s hopes and dreams of imposing boosters on all Americans.

Among those that gave testimony during the hearing was Dr. Steve Kirsch, director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. What he had to say was explosive. Every American needs to listen up.

“I’m going to focus my remarks today on the elephant in the room that nobody likes to talk about: that the vaccines kill more people than they save,” Kirsch said via teleconference.

https://t.co/pi3TjTbjZP pic.twitter.com/Kg6cRd5gjm

— Chuck (@VikeKang) September 17, 2021

“Today, we focus almost exclusively on COVID death saves and vaccine efficacy because we were led to believe that vaccines were perfectly safe. But this is simply not true.”

“For example, there are four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6-month trial report,” Kirsch continued. “That wasn’t bad luck. VAERS shows heart attacks happened 71x more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine.”

“In all 20 people died who got the drug, 14 died who got the placebo. Few people noticed that. If the net all-cause mortality from the vaccine is negative, vaccines, boosters, and mandates are all nonsensical.” (Screen shot here).

“Even if the vaccines had a 100% protection, it still means we killed two people to save one life,” he added.

Kirsch also explained that in nursing home death data shows about half the vaccinated died, while none of the unvaccinated died.

There's a lot of stuff, it's 8 hours long pic.twitter.com/cu2HLKzz4f

— Chuck (@VikeKang) September 17, 2021

The information he covered is truly disturbing. He was not alone. Dr. Jessica Rose, a viral immunologist and biologist, said that based on the VAERS data the risks of the vaccines far outweighs the benefits to young people, especially children.

“There’s an over 1000% increase in the total number of adverse events for 2021 and we are not done with 2021,” Rose pointed out.

BOMBSHELL Info During Todays FDA Vax Meeting

Dr Rose States Based on The VAERS Data… The Risks Far Outweigh The Benefits Especially For Children

Over A 1000% Increase In Adverse Events In 2021!

Questions If The Shots Are Driving The Variants

Clear Failure of These Products pic.twitter.com/ju7WV1Fk2j

— Covid-1984 (@NeverSleever) September 17, 2021

She also suggested that the COVID-19 variants are actually being driven by the vaccines.

“The emergence of both of these variants and their subsequent clustering arose in very close temporal proximity to the rollout of the COVID products in Israel,” she said.

“Israel is one of the most injected countries, and it appears from this data that this represents a clear failure of these products to provide protective immunity against emergent variants and to prevent transmission,” she noted.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman, an ER physician from New Orleans, brought up the fact that there is not enough large-scale clinical trial data to assure well-informed unvaccinated Americans that the vaccines do not pose a risk to their health.

An ER physician from New Orleans, Dr. Joseph Fraiman, noted not enough large-scale clinical trial data exists to assure well-informed unvaccinated Americans that their risk of experiencing vaccine side effects is lower than their chance of being hospitalized.

“Demand the booster trials are large enough to find a reduction in hospitalizations,” Fraiman told the FDA panel. “Without this data, we, the medical establishment cannot confidently call out anti-COVID vaccine activists who publicly claim that vaccines harm more than they save, especially in the young and healthy.”

“The fact we do not have the clinical evidence to say these activists are wrong should terrify us all,” he added.

It’s encouraging to see that these doctors actually presented real data and acted accordingly. No one should be receiving any “boosters” for COVID-19 especially until the shots can be proven to be safe and effective.

Despite the Biden regime’s plans to force boosters on all Americans who have already taken two COVID shots, the FDA did what was right and shot down the boosters, for now.

*

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 Ali Raza from PxHere.

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.

***

 

On July 29 the Washington Post ran an article titled “‘The war has changed’: Internal CDC document urges new messaging, warns delta infections likely more severe.”

As one would expect, the article did not receive much traction or exposure.

Needless to say, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the information contained in that piece. The article references an internal CDC slide presentation which summarizes preliminary data that the agency had in its possession but which it refuses to honestly share with the American public.

According to the Washington Post writers, this CDC document

“cites a combination of recently obtained, still-unpublished data from outbreak investigations and outside studies showing that vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated.” [emphasis added]

In other words, as far as the transmission of the prevalent delta variant is concerned, it does not matter whether one is vaccinated or not. According to CDC analysis both groups appear to become infected and infect others at the same rate.

You can view and examine this internal CDC document for yourself as the Washington Post has made it available on its website. (Please see here.) You can also download the document as a PDF file from the newspaper’s website at this link.

Slide #17 of this report carries the following heading: “Delta variant vaccine breakthrough cases may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”

If you scroll further down, you will come to slide #22 titled Summary. The third bullet point reads: “Breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”

This clearly shows that CDC officials have been aware at least since July that the Delta variant – which is the prevalent strain in the United States – infects the vaccinated as much as it does unvaccinated.

And yet top US health experts still keep claiming that Covid is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” This claim has been echoed by politicians and mainstream media.

This has been duly noted by the Associated Press in its September report: “This summer’s coronavirus resurgence has been labelled a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” by government officials from President Joe Biden on down.”

Amazingly enough, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who serves as director of the very agency that produced the above referenced report, used the phrase “a pandemic of the unvaccinated” during a White House briefing in the third week of July even as the report was being completed.

A couple of weeks later, however, she made a stunning admission during a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer on his program called The Situation Room. Referring to the vaccines that are being currently administered to millions of people wordwide, Walensky said: “[w]hat they can’t do anymore is to prevent transmission.”

Can you grasp the implication of this: the vaccines no longer prevent transmission of the virus that causes Covid-19.

The question, then, becomes: If the vaccines do not prevent transmission, how can this be a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Both cannot be true at the same time. In other words, it cannot be true that vaccines fail to prevent transmission and that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

The data clearly shows the truth of the former. Therefore, the claim of a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is false.

This fact, however, does little to deter Dr Anthony Fauci and other high-level officials from spreading this lie in public. Earlier this month, Dr. Fauci, who is commonly described as the nation’s top infectious diseases expert, repeated the claim of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” in an interview with National Public Radio.

What these so-called experts are saying is simply not true and they must know it, because they have data at their disposal that shows otherwise.

How can this be a pandemic of the unvaccinated when the vaccinated are getting infected and pass their infection at the same – if not higher rates – than those who have not been vaccinated?

In the article titled “The Vaccines Do Not Stop Severe Covid or Death” we cite facts and data to show not only that the vaccinated are getting infected at high rates, but that they also comprise the majority of those who are falling seriously ill with and perishing of Covid in countries with robust vaccination drives.

If this were a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,” it would be the unvaccinated who would be getting infected and dying in overwhelming numbers. This, however, is demonstrably not the case.

The allegation that this is a “pandemic of the unvaccinated” is flagrant lie, which flies in the face of numbers and facts.

It is as regrettable as it is disturbing that this lie is being propagated by our country’s top health officials. These people must know the truth and yet they choose to disseminate falsehoods about the pandemic.

The propagators of this lie must be called out and held responsible for their acts of deliberate deception. It is people like Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Anthony Fauci who are the super spreaders of misinformation regarding this pandemic.

In times such as this we need accurate information and guidance from our public health officials so that we can take effective steps to deal with this difficult situation. Propagation of gross falsehoods will only diminish public faith in our nation’s health agencies and sow more confusion which will give rise to misguided actions and prolongation of this crisis.

*

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.

Vasko Kohlmayer [email] was born and grew up in former communist Czechoslovakia. He is the author of The West in Crisis: Civilizations and Their Death Drives.

Featured image is from NOQ report

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 US has no plans to ask permission from the Taliban if it decides to bomb Afghanistan in the future, the Pentagon said on Friday.

Since the withdrawal, the US has maintained that it has “over the horizon capabilities” to carry out airstrikes in Afghanistan. But even though the Taliban is leading the new Afghan government, the Pentagon has no plans to coordinate with them on potential airstrikes.

“We retain all necessary authorities to execute over-the-horizon counterterrorism operations, and we remain confident in these capabilities moving forward,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told Military Times.

“Without speaking to specific rules of engagement surrounding airstrikes, there is currently no requirement to clear airspace with the Taliban, and we do not expect that any future over the horizon counterterrorism strikes would hinge on such a clearance,” he said.

The US has hinted at further intervention and airstrikes in Afghanistan under the guise of fighting ISIS-K. The Taliban have accepted air support from the US in the past against ISIS-K, but since the withdrawal was completed, the Taliban have said they don’t need foreign help to fight the terrorist group.

The last known US airstrike in Afghanistan took place on August 29th in Kabul, which killed 10 civilians, including seven children. The Pentagon initially claimed the strike targeted ISIS-K, but it was forced to admit that only civilians were killed in the bombing.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from Fabius Maximus Website

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.

***

 

A delegation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a 15-member regional organization, visited the Guinean capital of Conakry on September 17 in a bid to have the leaders of a military coup return to the diplomatic fold mandated by the broader African Union (AU).

One demand of the regional body was to allow ousted President Alpha Conde to leave the country pending the outcome of a possible political transition.

Other issues included a timetable for the holding of multiparty elections and the appointment of an interim government. The coup leaders, who were members of the special forces, took control of the state on September 5 while participating in a United States military training exercise coordinated by the Pentagon-based Africa Command (AFRICOM).

What became apparent from the statements made by the ECOWAS delegation was that there was no agreement on any of the key issues raised in the discussions. Although the heads-of-state involved in mandating the mission to Conakry were seeking to reach some level of understanding with the Committee for National Rally and Development (CNRD), the name of the special forces grouping gave to themselves, the regional organization was rebuffed knowing that the capacity of ECOWAS was extremely limited in forcing compliance.

The day before the ECOWAS delegation travelled to Guinea, September 16, the regional organization held an extraordinary summit to discuss the situations in Conakry as well as neighboring Mali, where two military coups have been carried out since 2020. Similarly, as in Mali, ECOWAS and the AU have not been able to remove Col. Assimi Goita after he and other military officers seized power from an elected, albeit unpopular, political leader.

Even the interim administration endorsed by ECOWAS which included military and civilian officials, was later removed by Goita making himself the sole leader of the Malian state, a country which holds tremendous mineral resources despite the continuing poverty and underdevelopment of its people. The military forces of Guinea and Mali are heavily penetrated by AFRICOM and the French Operation Barkhane under the guise of “counter-terrorism” training and preparedness. Washington and Paris have publicly opposed the CNRD coup while not having much to say about its close relationships with the soldiers in Mali and Guinea.

An ECOWAS Communique was issued on September 16 reiterating its position on Guinea while announcing the imposition of sanctions against the CNRD. The text of the communique reads in part:

“The Authority reiterates its unreserved condemnation of the coup of 5 September 2021 and reaffirms its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of President Alpha Conde. It also reminds members of the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) that they are individually and collectively responsible for the physical safety of President Alpha Conde. The Authority was apprised of the current socio-political situation in the Republic of Guinea and of the apparent commitment of the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (CNRD) to work towards a swift return to constitutional order. It also took note of the CNRD’s decision to hold consultations with all national and international stakeholders on the socio-political situation in the Republic of Guinea. The Authority expressed its concern about the resurgence of coups after the coups in Mali in 2020 and 2021.” (see this)

The actual sanctions against the CNRD includes the continued suspension of the coup makers from ECOWAS structures and deliberations. In addition, members of the CNRD are prohibited from traveling while their assets are frozen. Members of the junta, according to ECOWAS, are banned from running for public office in the event of national elections.

This communique concludes by emphasizing that:

“The Authority calls on the African Union, the United Nations and development partners to endorse the decisions and support the restoration of constitutional rule in the Republic of Guinea. Members of the Authority request the Chair of the Authority to visit the Republics of Guinea and Mali as soon as possible to convey in person the decision of the Authority. The Authority decides to remain actively seized on the matter.”

Mining, Industrialization and Economic Dependency

Guinea has maintained a tradition of mining and international trade since the pre-colonial kingdoms and states which developed long before the period known as the Middle Ages. The people of Guinea conducted explorations for gold and salt exchanging these commodities with other neighboring states and through routes which extended as far as North Africa and West Asia.

During the period of the Atlantic Slave Trade the area now known as Guinea was targeted by the European merchants seeking free labor. Colonialism emerged after centuries of slave capturing where Africans were exported to Latin America, the Caribbean and North America.

France colonized Guinea after years of resistance by the people, the most notable being Almamy Samori Toure who took up arms against the imperialists in the late 19th century. Under colonialism the mining industry was dominated by Paris where the resources and labor of the African people were super-exploited.

Of course, the mass liberation movement led by the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG) from the post-World War II period to independence in 1958, fostered an ideology of national development and socialist construction. The early phase of independence witnessed the restructuring of the ownership and profit distribution to provide more benefits to the Guinean people. Joint ventures between the Guinea government and multinational corporations were designed to channel the bulk of ownership and profits to the national entities set up by the PDG government.

However, there was much resistance to the African unification and socialist project of the first President Ahmed Sekou Toure. After his death in 1984 and the subsequent military coup, reactionary social forces within and outside the military moved closer in their alliances with France and the U.S.

As mentioned in a previous report, Guinea is a leading producer of bauxite and iron ore. These minerals have been extracted for decades inside the country without any significant benefit to the masses of the Guinean people. The industry has been marred in recent years by corruption involving bribes, nepotism and embezzlement.

Since the September 5 putsch, the mining industry has not ceased to operate. The CNRD leader, Lt. Col. Mamady Doumboya, after taking over the government, immediately encouraged the mining firms to continue with their business operations in the usual fashion.

Interestingly the CNRD implored the mining firms, many of which are based in the U.S., Britain, Australia and France, to build factories in Guinea and to prioritize the hiring of nationals from the West African country. Whether this was a serious call by the coup makers remains to be seen. What is clear is that historically mining firms operating in Africa have done almost nothing as it relates to fostering industrialization aimed at establishing import substitution sectors that could enhance economic development. (See this)

Class Character of the Military and Politicians

By observing the nature of the measures enacted so far by the CNRD there does not appear to be any significant break with the policies of the administration of former President Conde. The CNRD leader, Lt. Col. Doumbouya, was trained by France and the U.S. in various military colleges and through maneuvers such as Operation Flintlock.

Concurrently, Conde built his reputation as an opponent of the PDG government under the late President Toure. As a purported “human rights” campaigner and professor in France, Conde was groomed for the ascendancy to state power in Conakry. His administration was characterized by financial impropriety, political repression and a foreign policy orientation towards the western imperialist countries.

Conde does not stand alone in this regard among the ECOWAS states. The president of Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara, was installed by France with the endorsement of Washington in 2011, resulting in the kidnapping and attempted prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands of his predecessor President Laurent Gbagbo. Ouattara as well, altered the Ivorian constitution to extend his tenure in office.

Togolese President Faure Gnassingbe Eyadema has been leader of his country since 2005 after being appointed by his father prior to his death. All together the Gnassingbe family has maintained control of Togo for the last 54 years. In 2017, mass demonstrations demanding the resignation of Gnassingbe were met with extreme repression involving mass arrests, assassinations and the shutting down of the internet.

Therefore, the CNRD and the opposition parties within Guinea who have rallied to their support, believe that ECOWAS has no moral standing in making demands on the military regime. Pointing to the events which have transpired in Ivory Coast, Togo and other regional and African states in recent years, the Guinea military regime believes it can defy other heads-of-state in the current period.

The only way out of this cycle of dependency, societal underdevelopment and political instability is the resurgence of a people’s revolutionary movement which can organize the masses of workers, farmers and youth inside of Guinea and throughout the entire ECOWAS region. Profits from the mining of bauxite, iron ore, gold, diamonds and other natural resources could then be utilized for the national development of Guinea setting an example for other regional states in the quest for genuine independence and sovereignty.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: ECOWAS delegation to Guinea on Sept. 17, 2021 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Western Balkans are heating up, as tensions between Kosovo and Serbia are escalating rapidly in recent days.

It all began with Pristina forcing cars with Serbian registration plates to change them to temporary ones when entering Kosovo. It was allegedly a “reciprocal measure”, to what remains unclear.

The registration plate decision led to hundreds of ethnic Serbs staging daily protests against the authority of the Albanian-led Kosovo government. In the areas bordering Serbia, there have reportedly been attempts to entirely reject the government’s rule.

Policemen were dispatched to the area to establish security.

Regardless of all measures, hundreds of Serbs in Kosovo have been protesting and blocking traffic with trucks on the roads leading to two border crossings.

In response to Kosovo’s registration plate ruling and the police deployment, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic ordered a heightened regime for Belgrade’s army and police units along the border.

Serbian fighter jets could be seen flying again over the border region after several sorties.

The situation is quite sensitive, as there are a plethora of interests that collide in both Serbia and Kosovo. It is yet another impromptu standoff between Russia and the collective West.

The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell urged Serbia and Kosovo to reduce tensions. That was all of it, since the bloc has other things to worry about as winter nears.

The first one to contact the Serbian President was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who also spoke to the Kosovar Prime Minister.

Vucic has revealed himself as a rather pro-Western tool, and has even claimed that in the case of an escalation he would call for KFOR and NATO to protect the ethnic Serbs. These forces are primarily American, Canadian and Polish, the main parties responsible for most of the tragic issues in the region.

This claim is mixed with a significant anti-Russian hysteria campaign in the Serbian information sphere, which become even more intense after the Russian military attaché visited the border crossing. There are evident attempts at turning the issue from a standoff between Serbian and Kosovar authorities into an incident between “Russia against Kosovo and Serbia”.

Finally, it is noteworthy that the escalation takes place just days before Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visits Moscow to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Syria’s Idlib.

Ankara has a strong influence over the Albanian-led government, and the tensions may be a way for Erdogan to demonstrate that Moscow may have Turkish-orchestrated problems even away from the Middle East.

Still, this does provide Russia with an opportunity to swoop in and prove itself as a reliable ally of the Serbians, after the EU, NATO and others show that they are unwilling to provide tangible support. After all, it is hard to imagine that NATO member country Albania would move against the Albanian-led government in Kosovo and in Serbia’s favor.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Video: Sofia Benharira, 16 Years Old, Dies Following Pfizer “Vaccine”, Two Heart Attacks, Thrombosis. May She Rest in Peace.

By pierre raqiya, September 28, 2021

These are the events happening all over the World, children and adolescents are dying. Either the media does not report on vaccine related deaths or it states with authority  that the deaths are attributable to Covid. Crimes agains humanity, crimes against our children.

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

By Gérard Delépine, September 28, 2021

This article demonstrates unequivocally that mortality and morbidity has increased dramatically as a result of the vaccine. The incidence of Covid positive cases has also increased.

Scandinavian Governments Announce “COVID Is Over,” Israel Announces the Vaccine Doesn’t Protect

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 28, 2021

There will be no Covid passport.  In Sweden Covid restrictions are scheduled to end this Wednesday September 29. The Danish government decided two weeks ago to end Covid restrictions. 

Letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson: Challenge to Public Health England. They Must Show Proof that a Virus Exists

By Dr. Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn, David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. David Rasnick, and Prof. Roger Watson, September 28, 2021

There are major questions over the validity of the testing procedures being used to determine the presence in the UK population of the putative ‘Covid19 virus’ specifically relating to the throat swab (RT-PCR test) and evidence of previous infection using antibody tests.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 28, 2021

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy. And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down a national economy (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality.

Geopolitical Shifts: A New Future Dawns in the East

By Peter Koenig, September 28, 2021

A shift in the world’s power base, alliances and economic strength, will undoubtedly happen within the coming years. In fact, it’s already ongoing. But not necessarily according to Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) “The Great Reset”.

The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS): A Significant Step Toward the Inevitable Replacement of the OAS

By Arnold August, September 28, 2021

Leading up to the 6th Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS, or CELAC for the Spanish-language acronym), hosted by Mexico on September 18 in its capital, with 31 states participating, there were great expectations for a dramatic statement from CLACS as to whether it would de facto replace the Washington-based OAS (Organization of American States).

Jabs and Health Passports: Symbols of Modern-Day Tyranny

By Stephen Lendman, September 28, 2021

State-sponsored 9/11 was a game-changer, the mother of all false flags until way-surpassed by deceptively giving garden variety flu a scary new name. What followed was unjustifiably justified by an invented SARS-CoV-2 virus that was never isolated in lab analysis and doesn’t exist.

Freedom Prevails: COVID Data Shows ‘Public Health’ Mandates Only Harm People

By Jordan Schachtel, September 29, 2021

Excess deaths data tell us an incredible tale. Sweden has been largely open and free from any restrictions for 15 months and counting, and Stockholm has seen virtually *zero* excess deaths from the “deadly pandemic.”

Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19?

By Ronald N Kostoff, Daniela Calina, and et al., September 29, 2021

The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Highlights

• Bulk of COVID-19 per capita deaths occur in elderly with high co-morbidities.
• Per capita COVID-19 deaths are negligible in children.
• Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term.
• Clinical trials did not address long-term effects most relevant to children.
• High post-inoculation deaths reported in VAERS (very short-term).

Abstract

This article examines issues related to COVID-19 inoculations for children. The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children. The bulk of the normalized post-inoculation deaths also occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, while the normalized post-inoculation deaths are small, but not negligible, in children. Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.

A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.

Read the complete article here.

*

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

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.

***

 

There’s something about human nature that causes people in power to want to “do something” when faced with an unknown problem. Yet sometimes, doing nothing is better than “doing something.” When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more evidence is emerging that the laissez-faire approach to the issue — at least on a governmental/”public health” level — was the solution all along. The path chosen by Sweden, Belarus and a select few nations — which put the power in the hands of individuals to make their own health choices, instead of imposing draconian government edicts — appears to have won the day. With almost two years of data now in our hands, it sure seems that the ruling class has a lot to answer for.  

Since the first COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China, in early 2020, the supposed expert class has told us that their forcible “mitigation and suppression” tools, such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing via government edicts, were absolutely necessary to prevent incredible potential damage that would have been caused by the apparent unchecked circulation of this virus. The “experts” overwhelmingly endorsed these Chinese Communist Party-endorsed “health” measures, declaring them scientific overnight, despite many of these tools never being utilized in the event of a global pandemic. Far from looking back to reassess the premise of their grand plans, these leaders continued to plow forward with further and further restrictions on our liberties. They then pivoted to using these instruments of power in combination with compulsory therapy regimes, all under the guise of keeping us simple-minded plebs safe from the virus. Sure, all of our unalienable rights were seemingly stripped away without due process, but governments assured us that these supposedly scientifically proven measures would shield us from COVID-19. At the very least, we were told that these restrictions would be worth it because they are “keeping us safe.”

Now, almost two years have passed, and there is simply no evidence to date that these measures helped with our virus problem. In fact, given the excess death data of laissez-faire Sweden, you can now make the case that these “public health” solutions actually caused far more health problems than COVID-19 ever could by itself.

Excess deaths data tell us an incredible tale. Sweden has been largely open and free from any restrictions for 15 months and counting, and Stockholm has seen virtually *zero* excess deaths from the “deadly pandemic.”

As I told you almost 400 days ago ⬇️

Sweden is overcounting Covid death.
Covid death: ~15k
Excess death: ~3.5k
…80% of european countries have more excess death (per mio)!

Basically no excess death in Sweden for 15 month now (3.5k excess June 2020 as well).

Sweden wins!
1/2 pic.twitter.com/o6ppty8rO1

— Prof. Freedom (@prof_freedom) September 24, 2021

As of 9/25/2021, non-intervention countries Sweden and Belarus rank 43rd and 111th respectfully among nations in terms of COVID deaths per/100k population.

Again, this begs the question:

If Sweden and Belarus were able to outperform other nations by simply doing nothing, what exactly have all of these “public health expert” interventions accomplished?

The “experts” told us that their approach would certainly result in human catastrophe, with bodies lining every city block. Yet the opposite is true. Life has moved on from COVID in these nations, where the illness is being treated comparable to seasonal influenza.

Moreover, there appears to be declining confidence that the latest promised “cure” to the disease (mRNA injections) are acting as a cure in any way, shape, or form.

The Wall Street Journal: Israel, 80% Vaccinated, Suffers Another Covid-19 Surge.https://t.co/jDEoDJeHc4

— Charlie Oliver (@itscomplicated) August 13, 2021

* This is just a shocking observation, Not a correlation or a conclusion against vax.

Most countries with high % EXCESS DEATH in August
Israel, Qatar, Iceland, Spain: 21-25%
Finland, Chile, US, UK: 14-16%
Are highest vax. rates: 70-90% of adults
Source:https://t.co/I4lEF2hYuY pic.twitter.com/kYNQOaLxfV

— Ray Armat, Ph.D. (@RayArmat) September 24, 2021

In Sweden, children remained in school. Businesses remained open. People were allowed to live their lives as they saw fit. And yet, Sweden and others demonstrated excess mortality that was lower than average when compared to nations that had the most restrictions.

In America, due to government edicts, our overall health declined, we got sicker, we saw an unprecedented obesity increase, among other issues caused by “public health” interventions. Far from solving the virus issue at hand, it’s become clear that all of these mandates and restrictions just added additional problems on top of the issue of an endemic seasonal virus.

Indeed, sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, especially when you’re trying to fight a war against an endemic, submicroscopic infectious particle.

*

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.

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.

The unspoken truth is that the virus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. 

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the covid crisis.

The fear campaign prevails. And people are now led to believe that Big Pharma’s mRNA “vaccine” is the “solution”. And that “normality” will  be restored once the entire population of the planet has been vaccinated.

Video

Click lower right corner to enable fullscreen

Video produced in December 2020

Dear Readers,

In response to last week’s donation and membership campaign, we can now say that Global Research is no longer “in Troubled Waters”.

Our readers have thrown us a lifeline in the form of a donation or a membership subscription, allowing us to patch up and sail onwards.

Our readership has expanded. Despite media censorship, we are now navigating at more than 100 thousand page views a day.

We are living in the midst of a Worldwide crisis which threatens fundamental human rights and freedom of expression.

We have published extensively on these issues. We have also expanded our video productions.

At this juncture, we must ensure that truth in media and  freedom of expression prevail.

To reach out to a broad readership Worldwide, the referral of Global Research articles is fundamental, through sharing, forwarding, posting on blog sites as well as crossposting.

If you are in a position to donate 5-10 minutes of your day, we would be forever grateful. Here are some ways you could help:

• Establish an email list of some fifty friends and family and forward the daily Global Research Newsletter and/or your favourite Global Research articles to this list on a daily basis.

• Use the various instruments of online posting and social media creatively to “spread the word”. Click the “like” and “share” buttons on our articles’ pages for starters. Help keep our articles circulating.

• Post one or more Global Research articles on your blogs as well as internet discussion groups to build a dialogue around our coverage. Submit Global Research articles on independent media and partner websites.

• Do you have friends who would benefit from our articles? Consider encouraging them to sign up for our newsletter (click here for sign-up form).

• Are you part of a community group or organized webinar discussion group? Submit a topic we have covered or a specific article from our website for discussion at your next webinar meeting.

To support Global Research as part of our September- October donation campaign, please consider making a donation, or becoming a member,

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

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.

***

 

Many people have asked if I attend DAVOS meetings. The answer is NO! I considered taking a booth there to display Socrates, but decided against it because the overall theme of Davos was the very opposite of my personal views and the forecast of Socrates which says they will crash and burn.

The World Economic Forum is really a major effort to control the world.

Besides the Davos forums, and Schwab’s board members are strategically picked to infiltrate governments and agencies which has allowed the WEF to control the United Nations, IMF, World Bank, and the EU itself as well as the European Central Bank.

Schwab has placed people in key positions that all share his view of the world and how it MUST be changed. Mark Carney is the United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and on Schwab’s board. Carney served as the Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 until 2013 and the Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 and was promoted to those posts by Schwab.

Look at the slogan –

COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THE STATE OF THE WORLD

Schwab has strategically been seeking to build his global influence and even trains a broad range of C-level executives into his future dreams in an academic program tailored for his World Economic Forum Leadership Team.

Schwab is then indoctrinating people he identifies as future world leaders. The Young Global Leaders ^® Community is taking whom he considers exceptional people with “the vision, courage, and influence to drive positive change in the world”. 

Yes, courage to impose the Great Reset.

Schwab is indoctrinating the world to adopt his vision of how the world should function ending democracy.

As it happens, the phrase “know thy enemy” comes from the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu. The full quote goes like this:

“Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.“

This is a “conspiracy theory”. They call it that so you do not look closely.

*

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 Armstrong Economics

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.

***

 

A shift in the world’s power base, alliances and economic strength, will undoubtedly happen within the coming years. In fact, it’s already ongoing. But not necessarily according to Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) “The Great Reset”.

“Not necessarily”, because We, The People, can stop it. Plus, there are nations and their allies, who do not agree and won’t accept the enslavement of much of the world through the self-anointed powers of an ultra-rich elite.

The Saker, in his blog “Big, huge changes, in the near future (a tentative list)” (26 September 2021)  has covered most of the geopolitical transformations that are likely taking place in the foreseeable future.

Consider the SCO – the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – has just integrated Iran as new member. This – in the west – little-talked-about organization, association of eastern countries, created by China and Russia on 15 June 2001, started out with 7 Central and East-Asian members, Republic of Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Since then India, Pakistan have joined and now Iran. Associated members are Malaysia and Mongolia. Which makes the SCO one of the most powerful, possibly THE most powerful, socioeconomic and defense strategy organizations in the world – with nearly half the world’s population and about one third of the world’s GDP.

One could undoubtedly ask, what does India have to do in this club?

India is swinging from West to East to West, where ever the crumbs of fortune seem to be larger. Recent photographs of India’s PM Narendra Modi with President Biden, together smiling to the media – speaks for itself.

Well, for sure, there are macro-strategic reasons for keeping Modi’s India in the SCO-Association. The day will come when India will be India again – not just expressed by the will of the people, but also by her leaders.

*

As well illustrated in The Saker’s essay, the west is destined to break apart and eventually collapse. It’s reminiscent of the picture of a falling airplane, where the passengers are arguing and thrashing out on each other, while the rapidly descending plane is breaking apart – and soon hitting the ground. And probably goes up in smoke. It’s most likely not going to be that dramatic – but perhaps close.

Indeed, Europe cannot decide whether they belong to the western Anglo-American block that has also captured Australia and New Zealand – or to the much more stable, and much more peaceful and congenial mega-continent – Eurasia. Just a couple of figures to dwell about: 55,000,000 km2 (21,000,000 sq mi), and 5.4 billion population, as of October 2019 – about two thirds of the world population.

It’s actually a no-brainer. We will soon see whether Europe, the European Union, eventually will fall apart for not knowing where to belong, or make a last-minute right decision. It’s a pity, that the “system” insinuating ruling the World Order, does not see, or not want to see, that they are betting on a paper tiger – like NATO – to come to its rescue.

AUKUS

Let’s look at AUKUS. It stands for Australia, UK and US and aims at modernizing the primary beneficiary – Australia – over the coming decades to take up security challenges in the Indo-Pacific [clear speak: Take up offensive positions against China and Russia].

The plan is to give access to cutting edge military technology to Australia by its two partners, including futuristic capabilities like artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. This refers to the recent deal of US/UK built nuclear submarines, canceling the submarine contract Australia had with France. See this.

This, AUKUS deal for unprepared France, annihilated a US$ 66 billion equivalent Australian contract with French majority state-owned Naval Group to provide 12 conventional diesel-electric submarines for Australia.

And imagine, this is just one of the first “deals” of the rather new AUKUS alliance. What may follow, are more such self-centered, immediate-profit-oriented deals that help further breaking apart the once-upon-a-time so powerful western alliance.

The new AUKUS deal will provide Australia with nuclear powered submarines. But the agreement is so new, neither cost nor time frame are so far public knowledge.

France withdrew its ambassadors to the United States and Australia after U.S. President Joe Biden revealed last week a new tripartite alliance including Australia and Britain that would allow Australia to amass a fleet of at least eight nuclear-powered submarines.

Russia Today (RT) sums it up:

It is no surprise, then, that the newly forged Atlantic-Pacific triple alliance between the US, Great Britain, and Australia, known as AUKUS, has caught the eye of Russian leaders and defense chiefs. Announced on 15 September, the pact was presented as targeting China. However, it’s clear its geopolitical implications won’t be felt in Beijing alone.

The New AUKUS nuclear bloc won’t just battle China, it will take the West into confrontation with Russia too, Moscow’s security chief says.

Initially cautious, Moscow’s response has quickly become more critical. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, has denounced AUKUS as the “prototype of an Asian NATO,” set to expand, and directed against both China and Russia.

The essence of AUKUS is not complicated. While it covers various areas, such as cyber and artificial intelligence, its core is the transfer of technology from the USA to Australia. And not just any technology, but that of nuclear-powered submarines, which, until now, have been in the possession of only six states: China, France, Great Britain, Russia, the USA, and – in a complicated manner dependent on Russia – India. And of course, never to be mentioned: Israel.

In conclusion – Moscow may, accordingly, expand its own nuclear submarine fleet in the Pacific. In such a world, the already existing strategic partnership between China and Russia would only get stronger.

In parallel to this AUKUS treason on France, Biden is hosting a Quad summit (Quad Alliance = Quadrilateral Security Dialogue is a strategic dialogue between the United States, India, Japan and Australia). While the topic is not official news yet, it’s not difficult to guess that the subject is how to “contain” – speak “aggress” Russia and China. And again, strangely, prominent SCO member India plays along.

*

There is the economic impact such a deal may have, not only in figures of hard money, but also as a precedent. No rules are respected. This is the “free market” of the New Brave World, under which not even traditional allies are respected and secure.

It is difficult to predict how France under Macron will act in response. Macron is certainly no De Gaulle. President Macron – or his aids, have insinuated that in response to the abrogation of the Aussie-French nuclear submarine deal, France may exit NATO. We can easily speculate, that’s what De Gaulle would have done. That would be something to be proud of for France and, in the long run for Europe too. But it is unlikely to happen. Macron is “guided” by darker forces, emanating from the financial establishment.

This socioeconomic and political break-up of the so-called western alliance, will certainly hurt a lot of people, but the world, Mother Earth, will survive, and most of those who have not betrayed their beliefs may too.

It is unfathomable what the onset of covid has destroyed in terms of socioeconomic wealth and simply, wellbeing. People in the Global South, about whom hardly any wester politician speaks, are dying, from hunger, despair, disease – and merely from desperation. According to the World Food Program, close to a billion people are already suffering from famine or are at the verge of seriously suffering from food scarcity.

The imminent break-up of the west will accelerate the shift of economic and political power to the east.

Europe has not much time to decide whether they belong to the Future – the east – or to the defunct and decaying past, the west (self-destruction by egocentricity and self-imposed empire). It requires both, the (western) people to wake up and take back their governments, abducted by the dark invisible forces; and the human strength to survive on a level of no-revenge, non-aggression, despite enormous sacrifices that may have to be made to salvage our civilization.

Yes, it’s possible. We can do it.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Oggi a La Spezia il ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini inaugura SeaFuture 2021 (v. l’ articolo di Giorgio Beretta), la mostra militare-navale sponsorizzata dalle principali industrie belliche. In testa Fincantieri («sponsor strategico»), Leonardo («sponsor di platino») e Mbda (joint venture europea in cui Leonardo ha il 25%) che partecipa come «sponsor d’oro».

Il «Futuro» è già stato tracciato nella «Direttiva per la politica industriale della Difesa», emanata da Guerini il 29 luglio: l’Italia deve «disporre di uno Strumento militare in grado di esprimere le capacità militari evolute di cui il Paese necessita per tutelare i propri interessi nazionali», che assicuri «la sua appartenenza alla cerchia dei Paesi tecnologicamente ed economicamente avanzati».

La Direttiva, ribaltando l’Articolo 11 e altri principi costituzionali col silenzio-assenso del Parlamento, stabilisce che l’Italia deve sempre più armarsi. Allo stesso tempo stabilisce che l’Italia deve mantenere e rafforzare «la relazione strategica con gli Stati Uniti, per assicurare il coinvolgimento nell’innovazione tecnologica che trova negli Usa uno dei principali incubatori, per favorire l’accesso delle aziende italiane nel mercato americano e per posizionare meglio l’Italia nel contesto europeo».

La linea tracciata dalla Direttiva è già da tempo operativa.

Basti ricordare: l’imbarco sulla portaerei Cavour, la nave ammiraglia della Marina, dei caccia Usa F-35B a decollo corto e atterraggio verticale, al cui impiego la nave è stata certificata a Norfolk in Virginia; la decisione di armare i sottomarini e le fregate italiane di missili Cruise con raggio di almeno 1.000 km; la decisione di armare i droni Reaper, che l’Italia ha acquistato dagli Usa.

Questi e altri armamenti, di cui vengono dotate le nostre forze armate, non servono alla difesa ma all’attacco. La Cavour armata degli F-35B diventa una base militare avanzata che, dispiegata in lontani teatri bellici, può attaccare e invadere un paese; i sottomarini e le fregate possono colpire da grande distanza un paese con missili da crociera che, volando a bassissima quota sul mare e lungo il contorno del terreno, sfuggono alle difese anti-aeree; i droni Reaper, teleguidati da migliaia di km di distanza, possono colpire i «bersagli» umani con missili Fuoco infernale e bombe a guida laser o satellitare. L’Italia si sta così armando per partecipare ad altre guerre sotto comando Usa/Nato.

La «relazione strategica con gli Stati Uniti», stabilita dalla Direttiva, si sta rafforzando ogni giorno di più. Il gruppo Fincantieri, controllato per il 70% dal Ministero dell’economia, ha negli Usa tre cantieri, in cui sta costruendo dieci fregate multiruolo per la US Navy e quattro analoghe navi da guerra per l’Arabia Saudita.

La Leonardo – la maggiore industria militare italiana, che ricava dagli armamenti oltre il 70% del suo fatturato – fornisce negli Usa prodotti e servizi alle forze armate e alle agenzie d’intelligence, e in Italia gestisce l’impianto di Cameri dei caccia F-35 della Lockheed Martin. Il 30% dell’azionariato del gruppo Leonardo appartiene al Ministero dello Sviluppo economico.

Per questo alla mostra militare di La Spezia, a fianco del ministro Guerini del Pd partecipa il ministro Giorgetti della Lega. Definito «esperto di conti», pensa lui a gestire i 30 miliardi di euro già stanziati dal Ministero dello Sviluppo economico a fini militari e gli altri 25 richiesti dal Recovery Fund.

I 26 miliardi di euro spesi annualmente dal ministero della Difesa non bastano più. Occorre passare ad almeno 36 miliardi annui, come richiesto dalla Nato e ribadito dagli Usa. Tanto per fare due conti, la portaerei Cavour è costata 1,3 miliardi di euro, i 15 F-35B per la Marina costano 1,7 miliardi, e a questi si aggiungono altri 15 F-35B e 60 F-35A a capacità nucleare per l’Aeronautica.

Ci sono poi le spese operative: un giorno di navigazione della Cavour costa oltre 200 mila euro e un’ora di volo di un F-35 oltre 40 mila euro. Sempre con denaro pubblico sottratto alle specie sociali, investito in armi e guerre per «tutelare i nostri interessi nazionali e appartenere alla cerchia dei Paesi economicamente avanzati».

Manlio Dinucci

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.

***

 

Covid-19 came to Saskatchewan (pop 1,179,906) on March 12, 2020.

This highly infectious, deadly disease devastated 0.05% of the population; miraculously sparing 99.95%.

Officially, Covid killed 658 Saskatchewanians. Persons aged 80-and-over account for 298 (45%) of fatalities. 60-and-over account for 85%.

304,000 Saskatchewanians are aged 19-and-under. Covid allegedly killed 3 of them. Annually, Covid culls 0.00049% of Saskatchewan youth. Accidental drownings kill more kids than Covid.

In the year ending December 31, 2021, a total of 10,107 Saskatchewanians died (up slightly from 2019). Typically, 0.8% of Saskatchewanians die annually. Year-to-year fluctuations render Covid’s signal undecipherable.

Tens of thousands of Saskatchewanians suffer chronic respiratory and/or immune malfunction. Chest infections finish-off many of these people. Most Covid fatalities rested on death’s brink, pre-Covid. Still, Covid killed only a tiny percentage, even of this frail cohort.

• Covid cases to date: 63,875
• Active cases: 4,715
• Resolved cases (dead or recovered): 59,160
• Covid’s official survival rate: 98.9%
• Testing programs undercount cases. 15% of Saskatchewanians have had Covid
• Covid’s real survival rate: 99+%

Of 4,715 active cases, 273 are hospitalised. 94% of Covid cases self-medicate and self-police their quarantine. They’re clearly not in distress. Furthermore, letting 4,442 infected patients roam free means authorities don’t believe their own hype about Covid’s contagiousness and lethality.

Hospitalization stats reflect shifting stratagems. Deciding whether a Covid case goes home, or to hospital, is exclusively the privilege of conspiring physicians. Zero transparency. Zero oversight.

Daily testing rates dictate daily case counts. Early September saw many days with under 2,000 tests. Mid-September, daily tests suddenly jacked to 4,000+. Voila! …Fourth Wave.

1,532,204 vaccinations have been administered. Daily jab counts, which range from 200 to 18,000, currently hover in the low thousands.

Pre-Fourth Wave, as mere persuasion ran its course, daily jabs dipped to mere hundreds.

986,000 Saskatchewanians are aged 13-and-over[WK1] . 723,081 are doubly vaccinated. 31,067 are triply vaxxed. 531 have had Booster-4. (Most of the 50,000 single-dosers are awaiting their second jab.)

180,000 Saskatchewanians reject the injection.

*

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.

Sources

Saskatchewan Population Quarterly Review, First Quarter, 2021.

Saskatchewan Population Report for Calendar Year January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021

Government of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Health Authority, Covid Dashboard

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.

***

 

Leading up to the 6th Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CLACS, or CELAC for the Spanish-language acronym), hosted by Mexico on September 18 in its capital, with 31 states participating, there were great expectations for a dramatic statement from CLACS as to whether it would de facto replace the Washington-based OAS (Organization of American States). This prospect came about because of remarks by political leaders leading up to the summit. Fortunately, however, this dramatic shift did not take place.  

This wise decision was based on the foresight and political acumen that many Latin American leaders have developed, not only over the last decades since the Cuban and Bolivarian Revolutions, but even as far back as two centuries ago, when Bolívar initiated the struggle to liberate and integrate the entire region from Spanish colonialism.

President Nicolás Maduro set the tone by evoking, among other points, the road to the construction of CLACS and the role of Chávez and Venezuela based on the legacy of Bolívar. This merited a tweet that Chávez was effectively present at the summit: “Watching TeleSur, inspired, Chávez is in the Summit.”

Before presenting his view on CLACS process to further solidify integration, with the good fortune that the alphabetical order placed Venezuela as the last head of state to speak, Maduro challenged two presidents who preceded him and who had asserted false accusations of Venezuela being undemocratic and of the OAS being indispensable and thus not in contradiction with CLACS. On the latter issue of OAS-CLACS, the rebuttal by the Venezuelan head of state, whose very presence was a stunning defeat of the North – comprised of the US and Canada and their few Latin American allies that have tried to overthrow him and ostracize him in the international community – he emphatically stated that there is indeed a contradiction between the OAS and CLACS, an old one dating moreover from the 19th century as Monroism versus Bolivarianism.

Maduro proposed, among other suggestions, “the constitution of a CLACS General Secretariat with sufficient power to take the reins of the construction of what is the dream of Latin American and Caribbean integration,” as part of a “new institutionalization” of CLACS.

In effect, the conditions were not yet ripe on September 18 for a de facto replacement of the OAS by CLACS. Had this step been taken prematurely, it would have backfired. First, it was clear from the statements by many representatives of anti-OAS governments that the pandemic is a major preoccupation; thus, a premature debate and the inevitable contradictions arising from the tectonic switch of the OAS to CLACS would detract from the fight against the pandemic.

Second, another immediate concern as expressed in Mexico, especially by the small island nations in the Caribbean, is climate change, which is a direct challenge to the very existence of these vulnerable peoples. In this context, a current priority may be Latin American and Caribbean countries’ policy toward the next international climate change conference (COPS26), which takes place October 31 to November 12, 2021, in Glasgow, Scotland.

Third, further political shifts to the left in the region in the coming year would greatly assist the composition of CLACS in its goal to replace the OAS. The most obvious scenario is the Brazilian presidential elections in October 2022. Brazil withdrew from CLACS under the extreme right-wing Bolsonaro government and therefore was not present in Mexico. Luis da Silva, one of the precursors of CLACS, is ahead in the polls for the 2022 elections. Moreover, Colombia (which boycotted the Mexico Summit to protest the Maduro government and lick the boots of Washington) goes to the polls on May 29, 2022, for the first round, where leftist Gustavo Petro is at this time ahead in the polls. Chile votes for a new President on November 21, 2021, with the possibility of a left-wing coalition replacing the Pinochet-era Sebastián Piñera. Indeed, he must find himself in a relatively weak position, as his representative in Mexico did not dare criticize Maduro nor the CLACS goal of eventually replacing the OAS. This may be a good sign as to the outcome of the Chilean elections.

Thus, the orientation of combining the step-by-step institutionalization of CLACS while seeming to wait patiently for further left-wing shifts in the region’s political landscape so as to maximize the isolation of the inevitable US satellites (such as, this time, Paraguay and Uruguay) is farsighted and wise.

Yes, there is an urgent need to replace the OAS with CLACS. Perhaps no one outside the region, such as the anti-imperialist left in the US and Canada, feels this pressing demand as a result, for example, of the Canadian government’s leading role in alliance with the US in promoting violent regime change against the constitutionally elected President Maduro. It would be best for the Canadian government to reverse its pro-US course, which contributed to its humiliating defeat for a seat on the UN Security Council in June 2020, and instead respond favourably to the suggestion by some heads of states and governments in Mexico to form an alliance with CLACS based on mutual respect.

The replacement of the OAS by CLACS is inevitable. When? We do not know. However, just causes always triumph, especially when desired by an entire region. Look at the example of Cuba. Once expelled from the OAS, it is now at the very centre of regional integration to the extent that even mortal enemies of the Cuban Revolution had to sign on to an agreement in Mexico calling on the US to lift the criminal and genocidal blockade against Cuba. Furthermore, in Mexico, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel scored a knockout against the Uruguayan representative who provocatively expressed support for regime change in Cuba. He insulted Cuba, then Díaz-Canel firmly responded, followed by a whimpering Uruguayan “rebuttal”; the Cuban president then delivered the final blow. A dignified defense of Cuba by its president.

Thus, on that memorable day in Mexico, the specter of both Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro came back to haunt the US and its allies.

The eventual restoration of CLACS on the grave of the OAS will mean a major shift not only in regional geopolitics but also globally. Enter China. In July 2014, the regional leaders and China together declared the establishment of the China–CLACS Forum. At the invitation of the CLACS rotating presidency, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the CLACS Mexico Summit via videoconference with closed captioning in both Spanish and English. He said that the agreement opened a new avenue for cooperation between China, Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole. Its birth 10 years ago was a milestone in the process of integration of the area, because it took place amid the countries’ efforts to preserve their independence and self-strengthening. He affirmed that China attaches high relevance to strengthening relations with that organization and supported it in boosting greater cooperation among its members and in the search for solutions to face common challenges.

Thus, the eventual replacement of the OAS by CLACS will represent an enormous geopolitical planetary change. It will contribute further to the quest of world multipolarity against the US-led never-ending western’s goal of domination over the global south.

*

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: Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro together. Credit: Havana Times/Google Images

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.

***

This letter was sent on July 22nd 2020.

 

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.

***

 

A new report in the journal Toxicology Reports has warned that the health risks caused by COVID-19 vaccines are simply too high for children. Scientists from the United States and Europe reached this conclusion following a review of data showing that the risks related to vaccines outweigh any potential benefits they may provide to young people.

One of their chief concerns was the disease’s relatively low risk to young people. They wrote: “The bulk of the official COVID-19-attributed deaths per capita occur in the elderly with high comorbidities, and the COVID-19 attributed deaths per capita are negligible in children.”

Another concern they outlined was the fact that clinical vaccine trials only spanned a few months and that the samples used did not represent the overall population. The small size of the trials in adolescents and children have a poor predictive power, and the trails did not address any changes in biomarkers that would have served as early warning indicators of a higher predisposition to serious disease.

In addition, the long-term effects were ignored. They wrote: “Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”

They also cited the high number of post-inoculation deaths reported in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – a system that has been shown historically to only report around 1 percent of the actual vaccine adverse events that take place, they point out. Moreover, the deaths shown in VAERS so far are short-term only – around one month in children – which means it doesn’t take into account potential deaths in the intermediate and long term from problems like clotting, autoimmune effects, and antibody-dependent enhancement that take longer to develop.

The report said that in a conservative cost-benefit analysis of the best-case scenario, there are five times as many deaths attributable to each inoculation versus those that can be attributed to the disease in the most vulnerable demographic, people aged 65 and above. And because the risk of dying from COVID-19 is reduced dramatically as age decreases, the longer-term effects of these shots on the younger age groups could raise their risk-benefit ratio substantially.

Pfizer moving forward with push to vaccinate young children

Nevertheless, last week, Pfizer announced that clinical trials have shown its vaccine is safe and effective in children aged 5 to 11 at a dose of a third of the amount being given to adolescents and adults and that they plan to submit their data to the FDA soon. This came just three days after an FDA advisory panel voted against the drug giant’s application for a COVID-19 booster shot for Americans over 16.

They cited several concerns in their decision, including a lack of sufficient data to assess the risks of Pfizer’s vaccine to younger groups. In particular, they highlighted the potential higher risk of heart inflammation, particularly among young men aged 16 and 17. The vaccine currently only has emergency use authorization for children aged 12 to 15.

The company is also studying the vaccine in even younger age groups, including ages 2 to 5 and six months to age 2. However, those trials have not yet been completed. They are looking at children in more than 90 locations in the U.S., Spain, Poland and Finland, some of whom have previously been infected with the virus and others who have not. Johnson & Johnson and Moderna have also been studying their vaccines in children but neither has completed its research.

Despite the report’s finding, it appears that the recent return to school and controversy over mask wearing among students will be used to justify a push to line children up for this potentially dangerous vaccine.

*

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 bigpharmanews.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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, Sofia Benharira passed away on September 21,  7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. 

This is happening all over the World: Children and adolescents are dying. 

Either the media fails to report vaccine related deaths or it states (with authority) that the deaths are attributable to Covid-19. 

Crimes agains humanity, crimes against our children. The media also bears responsibility.

And did you know that Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice.

The “vaccine poison” imposed at the level of the entire planet is produced by a pharmaceutical company which has been indicted by the US Department of Justice (2009) on charges of “fraudulent marketing”. 

The vaccine must be halted immediately.

May Sofia Benharira Rest in Peace. Her passing should send the following message to parents Worldwide:

Pfizer is killing our children. And our governments are being bribed by Big Pharma. 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 29, 2021

***

Sofia Benharira, 16 years old, dies following the Pfizer vaccination.

 

Sofia Benharira, 16 ans, est décédée suite à la vaccination au Pfizer.

Étudiante au Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardanne (13) à Aix-en-Provence est décédée le 21 septembre, 7 jours après avoir reçu l'injection pfizer .

2 crises cardiaques + 1 thrombose.https://t.co/zF3dp1quOf

. pic.twitter.com/iZMOGCSr1l

— Association Parents en Colère (@AssociationPEC) September 25, 2021

https://www.pompes-funebres-dumas.fr/avis-de-deces/sofia-benharira-aix-en-provence-ds00144062?utm_source=facebook

Obsèques cet après-midi à l’église de Gardanne de Sofia Benharira, 16 ans.

Elle était en bonne santé, Elle aurait fait 2 arrêts cardiaques après la seconde injection du 14 septembre, Elle est morte le 21 septembre. En commentaire le témoignage de sa marraine (sa tante)

Obsèques cet après-midi à l’église de Gardanne de Sofia Benharira 16 ans. Elle était en bonne santé, Elle aurait fait 2 arrêts cardiaques après la seconde injection💉 du 14 septembre, Elle est morte le 21 septembre. En commentaire le témoignage de sa marraine (sa tante) pic.twitter.com/935WM5tSdi

— LE GÉNÉRAL 0FFICIEL💎 (@LE_GENERAL_OFF) September 27, 2021

Que Dieu vous protège

 

Our thanks to Pierre Racquia for having brought this report to the attention of Global Research.

*

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.

***

 

I have had confirmation of my report last Saturday that Norway has terminated all Covid restrictions (see this).  I am uncertain whether it is an immediate termination or the beginning of a phase out. 

Norway’s equivalent to the CDC has downgraded Covid-19 to a strong flu.

There will be no Covid passport.  In Sweden Covid restrictions are scheduled to end this Wednesday September 29. The Danish government decided two weeks ago to end Covid restrictions. 

The President of  Croatia has also declared: “We will not be vaccinated anymore.”  (see this)  Have you heard any of this on CNN, NPR, MSNBC or read it in The NY Times?

How do we explain Scandinavia and Croatia going the opposite direction to the EU?

It is a known fact the the EU government is authoritarian, not democratic.  Power rests in an unelected Commission.  As Covid restrictions are a boon to authoritarianism, perhaps the Scandinavian governments have decided against that direction.

The Scandinavian position is also totally different from the US one where the CNN-NPR-MSNBC-NY Times lie machine and Big Pharma shills such as Fauci, Walensky, and the White House Idiot continue to push for mask mandates, vaccination of children, booster shots, and firings and lockdowns if there is public resistance to any more inoculation.

The lie machine keeps turning out propaganda that adverse reactions to the vaccine are new Covid cases among the unvaccinated, that the vaccine protects despite requiring endless boosters and that if it doesn’t protect it still reduces Covid mortality, that 1,000,000 American children have Covid, and every other lie they can concoct to drive people into more injections. Is profit the only motive?  Probably not. Elite Americans are the largest audience at the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” indoctrinations.

If Scandinavia can recover from the Covid brainwashing, why cannot the US, UK, and EU?

And what is wrong with Israel?  Jews are supposed to be intelligent.  Yet Israel continues a self-defeating policy in the face of Israeli mainstream media broadcasts that the vaccination policy is a total failure— see this.  If the English translation of the news broadcast is correct, of the previous day’s new 279 Covid cases in Israel, 259 were “fully vaccinated.”  Only 29 were “unvaccinated.” In other words 90% of the new Israeli Covid cases were fully vaccinated people.

The Israeli news broadcast goes on to report that the US CDC has admitted that people infected with the “Delta variant” have the same viral load whether or not they are fully vaccinated. In other words, vaccinated people can spread the virus as easily as the unvaccinated and thus the policy of excluding vaccinated Covid patients from quarantine is nonsensical. The news announcer says such questions are not discussed because of concern that people will not bother to take the vaccine. The only remaining reason the news announcer can find for taking the vaccine is the unverified, and almost certainly false, claim that whereas you have no protection from the vaccine against catching Covid, you have a smaller chance of dying from the virus if you are vaccinated.  This conclusion leaves out the known injuries and deaths from the vaccine itself, but there is probably a limit to what the news organization can report.

So there you have it.  The only remaining justification for being vaccinated is the unverified claim that although the vaccine will not reduce your chance of catching Covid, it will reduce your chance of dying from Covid as long as you ignore the chance of serious health injury or death from the vaccine itself.

Obviously, Israel should turn an eye to India, Japan, and Africa where Ivermectin is in widespread use and has shut down Covid.  This policy is far more safe, efficient, and much less costly than the mRNA vaccines.  Why is the Israeli government ignoring the obvious solution and instead conducting a Holocaust policy against Israeli Jews?

Why are the US, UK, EU, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand governments conducting a Holocaust policy against their own people?

*

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

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.

***

 

Romanian prosecutors have opened investigation into the country’s Covid vaccine acquisitions and has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.

As reported by GreatGameIndia earlier, the European Union has launched an inquiry into the secret talks that took place between EU Commission Chief and Pfizer CEO for the sale of vaccines.

The European Ombudsman has demanded that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explain how she lost text messages that she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer during talks about vaccine procurement.

Now, even the Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) has announced that it opened investigations related to the circumstances under which Romania purchased [too many, prosecutors seem to imply] Covid vaccines.

“As far as I know, the procedures followed for the procurement [of vaccines] in all European Union countries were the same, and they were developed by the European Commission,” Valeriu Gheorghiță, the head of the national vaccination campaign, said, according to Hotnews.ro.

Prosecutors said that the investigations are opened in order to spot potential “abuse of office” [implying personal benefits derived by those so far unidentified] involved.

Notably, the health ministry was managed until early September by the reformist USR-PLUS party, which pulled out of the ruling coalition meanwhile and launched a no-confidence motion against the Government. But the ministry of health was not directly involved in the procurement.

Romania has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.

Declining demand for coronavirus vaccinations in Romania has prompted authorities to close 117 vaccination centres and to reduce the schedule at 371 others, health officials have said.

“In the previous week, we re-evaluated the efficiency of fixed vaccination centers. About 80% of fixed vaccination centres vaccinate less than 25% of the vaccination capacity allocated to each stream,” national vaccination committee chief Valeriu Gheorghita said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Czech Republic is planning to destroy 45,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccines branded as Covishield in India since nobody wants to take the shots.

Meanwhile, more than 14,000 doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine were thrown away in the past month alone due to the lack of interest from the public.

Even, Singapore is studying the possibility of using non-mRNA vaccines as booster shots and is in talks with suppliers to obtain the vials, said Senior Minister of State for Health Janil Puthucheary in Parliament.

Recently, the President of Croatia hammered the media Monday after a reporter asked why the vaccination rate in Croatia is not as high as in other European Union countries.

The Croatian President Zoran Milanovic retorted saying, “We will not be vaccinated anymore”.

Croatians have been “vaccinated enough” and should be allowed to accept the risks of becoming infected with COVID on their own terms, according to President Zoran Milanović.

“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the #virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”

Read more 👉🏽 https://t.co/7YVyVRiXbt pic.twitter.com/VdWWNBPDWj

— GreatGameIndia (@GreatGameIndia) September 23, 2021

“We will not go more than 50 percent, let them fence us with wire,” Milanović said in recent statements to the press. “I don’t care. We’re vaccinated enough and everyone knows it.”

“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”

President Milanović broke with the majority of his contemporaries in expressing frustration over medical authoritarianism and COVID hysteria pushed by the mainstream media and the globalists.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Following revelations that Federal Reserve officials made trades in financial assets while the Fed was taking extraordinary efforts to “stimulate” the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell ordered a review of the Fed’s ethics rules. While these trades appear problematic, they pale in comparison to the biggest Fed scandal — the Fed’s impoverishment of ordinary Americans, enrichment of the elites, and facilitation of government debt and deficits.

The depression induced by coronavirus, though really caused by so-called public health actions government took in response, was the official reason for the Fed’s increased asset purchases last year. However, the Fed actually started ramping up its money creating activities in September of 2019, when it began pouring billions a day into the repo markets, which banks use to make short-term loans to each other, in order to keep repo market interest rates low.

Coronavirus was just a convenient excuse for the Fed to do more of what it was already doing. Now, the Fed is using the limited reopening as a scapegoat for rising prices. Of course, anyone who understands Austrian economics understands that rising prices are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation. Inflation is the very act of money creation by the Fed.

Rising prices that diminish the average American’s standard of living are not the only result of the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply. The manipulation distorts economic signals, producing results including booms, bubbles, and busts.

Inflation has always benefited the well-connected elites who receive the Fed’s newly created money before the new money causes widespread price increases. The true motivation behind Fed policies was revealed by former Fed official Andrew Huszar in 2013. Huszar, writing for the Wall Street Journal, confirmed that quantitative easing kept stock prices high, instead of helping Americans struggling with the aftereffects of the 2008 meltdown.

Other beneficiaries of the Fed are big-spending politicians. The Federal Reserve’s purchase of federal debt instruments keeps the federal government’s debt servicing costs manageable. This is why, despite Chairman Powell’s recent suggestion that the Fed will soon begin “tapering” its purchases of Treasuries, the Fed is unlikely to significantly reduce its purchase of Treasuries or allow interest rates to significantly increase.

Powell is also unlikely to upset President Biden and Biden’s congressional allies as long as progressives are urging Biden not to reappoint Powell. Progressives want to replace Powell with someone more committed to fighting climate change and systemic racism, two boogeymen routinely bought out as excuses for vast expansions in government spending and power.

Another major scandal involving the Fed is Congress’ refusal to pass the Audit the Fed bill and let the American people know the truth about the Fed’s operations. Audit the Fed authorizes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Fed’s dealing with foreign governments and central banks, the Fed’s discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market transactions. Audit the Fed would finally reveal the truth about the Fed’s operations.

A limited audit authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act found that between 2007 and 2010, the Federal Reserve committed over 16 trillion dollars to foreign central banks and politically influential private companies. Imagine what a full audit would find. It is time to end the scandal of allowing a secretive central bank to have so much power over the economy and our liberty. It is time to audit, and end, the Fed.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Revelations that the CIA discussed the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirm the staggering criminality of the US and British ruling class. By rights, they should see the US extradition case against Assange still proceeding through the UK High Court thrown out, and the investigation and prosecution of the conspirators up to the highest level of the US and UK governments and their intelligence agencies.

According to an investigation by Yahoo News published Sunday, President Donald Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo christened WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” in 2017 to make its employees and associates a legitimate target for CIA “offensive counterintelligence” activities.

Pompeo then asked for plans to be drawn up for Assange’s kidnap or assassination. The report is based on information from more than 30 US sources. Both Pompeo and the CIA have refused to comment.

These sources, former top US officials, explain that the US manhunt of Assange escalated dramatically after the publication of the “Vault 7” leaks in March 2017, exposing intimate details of CIA spying operations. Three sources stated that plans were discussed to kill the WikiLeaks founder, with Trump reportedly asking for “options” from the agency on how this could be done. CIA heads apparently requested and were provided “sketches” of assassination plans and discussions were had on “whether killing Assange was possible and whether it was legal,” according to one source.

Plans for Assange’s kidnap, in the event of a Russian-backed escape from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange had claimed asylum, included ramming a Russian diplomatic vehicle, shoot-outs with Russian agents in the streets of London and, as a last resort, shooting the tyres of any Russian plane trying to carry Assange out of the country. A senior official told Yahoo that Britain agreed “to do the shooting if gunfire was required.”

Yahoo’s investigation confirms and substantially expands on claims subject to a current court case in Spain that the firm UC Global, which provided security for Ecuador’s London embassy, worked with the CIA to spy on Assange and discussed his kidnap and assassination.

There is nothing the least surprising about the existence of plans for Assange’s murder. US imperialism has despatched its professional assassins all over the world to secure its interests for decades. The Assange plot recalls the murder of Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier in 1976, whose car was blown up in Washington D.C., just a mile from the White House. Organised by Augusto Pinochet’s secret police, the killing was facilitated by US intelligence under Operation Condor—though this has always been denied.

What is new today is the increasingly unguarded character of ruling class violence and repression. Plots once organised through accomplices, kept closely under wraps and strenuously denied are now carried out in ever more open fashion.

The admitted murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018 by agents of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, elicited only the most token “condemnation” by the US and UK governments.

Just over a week ago, the New York Times gloried in the US-Israeli assassination of Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Assange’s own killing was widely discussed shortly after the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and US diplomatic cables leaks. In 2012, WikiLeaks produced a video, titled “Assassinating Assange,” collecting the threats made against his life by prominent figures in the previous two years.

Commentators on Fox News called for the then Obama administration to “illegally shoot the son of a b****,” “have the CIA take him out” and say, “if we catch you, we’re gonna hang you.” Former Republican speaker of the house Newt Gingrich said Assange had “engaged in terrorism” and “should be treated as an enemy combatant.” He was agreed with by then Vice President Joe Biden, who labelled Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly asked in private, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

There is no doubt that high-level discussions regarding Assange’s possible assassination took place under Obama. Sunday’s revelations demonstrate that the Trump administration, in response to continued WikiLeaks releases causing serious damage to US imperialism and an explosion of domestic class tensions, sought ever more recklessly to realise this aim. Moreover, their leaking by so many sources must be related to the escalating factional warfare in ruling circles regarding Trump’s January 6 coup plot.

The close involvement of the British state in these plans sheds light on the January 4 surprise ruling by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be extradited to the US due to the “substantial risk” of his suicide. That ruling was challenged by the US, which this August was granted expanded grounds to appeal the decision in a hearing before the High Court scheduled for October 27-28.

Clearly, the type of “suicide” Baraitser had in mind was a murder orchestrated by the US state. The pseudo-legal pursuit of Assange was an ancillary operation to the kill or capture mission discussed by the CIA. Once Assange was in the clutches of the US prison system, he could meet a similar fate to that of Jeffrey Epstein—who supposedly hanged himself in his cell in August 2019 before being called to testify in a sex trafficking case implicating dozens of the most powerful figures in American society.

In the knowledge of this plot, the UK ruling class evidently felt it lacked sufficient deniability in January for such a barefaced murder of a journalist whose imprisonment it has overseen for the past decade. Every action taken by the British judiciary since the original denial of extradition, however, has been in the US government’s favour. By proceeding with the case, the British state is knowingly complicit in an ongoing conspiracy to murder or otherwise silence Assange forever.

Also complicit are the world’s media, above all the “liberal” Guardian in the UK and the New York Times in the US. At the time of writing, the Times had not reported on the Yahoo News revelations at all. The Guardian only published an article late on Monday evening (9 pm BST) and buried it in its media section.

Despite feeling belatedly forced to make a show of opposition to Assange’s extradition, these papers continue to do all in their power to obscure the full implications of a case that reveals the total, unreformable criminality of US, British and world imperialism. They have painted the extradition proceedings as a case of ill-advised overreach by embarrassed governments, which should be ruled against by a wiser judiciary.

These latest exposures blow this fraud apart. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Assange’s extradition must be dropped immediately. The US has not even the formal right to seek his extradition—under UK law, no one can be extradited to a country where they have a chance of facing the death penalty—and the UK has no right to hear his case. Both governments are party to kidnap and murder plots against him.

These facts alone do not offer any guarantee of Assange’s safety. In her ruling against extradition, Baraitser said of the defence’s evidence on UC Global and CIA surveillance that “there is no reason to assume this related to these proceedings” and that “fruits of any surveillance would not be seen by prosecutors assigned to the case.”

Baraitser’s statement proves there is no purely judicial route to Assange’s freedom. What is necessary is the construction of a mass international movement, rooted in the working class.

Building such a movement requires a complete rejection of the appeals made by those like the official Don’t Extradite Assange campaign to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Joe Biden and even, when he was president, Trump. All of these figures, together with their heads of intelligence and their deputies, are implicated in a plot to kill the WikiLeaks founder. The fight to free Assange is bound up with the struggle to put these imperialist gangsters in the dock in his place.

*

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.

***

 

Afghanistan’s US-run government was the world’s largest producer and exporter of opium, morphine, and the end-product, heroin.

As it did after first seizing power in the mid-1990’s, Taliban, the Islamic anti-drug and anti-communist movement, is shutting down the Afghan drug trade. Billions worth of heroin, opium and morphine that had been flowing into Central Asia, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Southeast Asia will be sharply reduced. Afghanistan’s drug-based economy is now in dire jeopardy.

But you would not know this if you follow the biased western press, notably the big US TV networks, social media and the BBC which thinks it’s Britain’s old colonial office. Western media has focused almost exclusively on the supposed plight of well-off westernized Afghan women in Kabul. That’s all you see on TV.

That these pampered ladies can’t easily get their nails done is not Afghanistan’s biggest problem. Nor is the closing of dance studios or fashion boutiques.

What really matters is that Afghan wedding parties and villages are no longer being savaged by US warplanes or B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers, or that wide scale torture by the Communist-run secret police, whose head, Amrullah Saleh, was a key US ally and the nation’s real strongmen, has been ended by Taliban.

Meanwhile, western media simply ignores the plight of women in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. I well recall being twice arrested in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia by religious police for walking with an attractive lady (an Estee Lauder beauty consultant).

I was arrested in Kuwait under similar suspicion. I was whipped by Saudi airport security police. And yet all we hear about or see are films of wicked Taliban soldiers maltreating Afghan women.

What I really want to know is what happened to all the billions in drug money reaped by the US-backed regime in Kabul and its allied warlords? Where are the pallets of fresh US $100 bills flown in from Washington to finance the Kabul regime? We saw the same phenomena in US-occupied Iraq. These mountains of cash just went ‘walkabout,’ as the Aussies say. Americans and US Arab allies grabbed the majority of these missing funds.

Iraq and Afghanistan account for one of the biggest thefts of money in modern history. Much of this sordid story has been documented by the US government’s own anti-corruption agency, SIGAR, which has waged a valiant battle to combat crime in Afghanistan during the $2 trillion, two-decade war.

Many of the drug-dealing criminals have already bailed out of Afghanistan via a US/British/French airlift. Others, Taliban opponents, mostly Tajik and Uzbek gang bosses, have managed to gain refuge in neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The most formidable opposition to Taliban came from the Tajik Northern Alliance in the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul. This US-allied group dominated the drug trade until run out of business by Taliban. Now it’s trying to rally with secret backing from France, India and the US.

China is playing a cautious game in Afghanistan. I was invited by Chinese military intelligence to Beijing in 1981 to ask me if Beijing should begin supplying arms to the Afghan Islamic anti-Soviet resistance, aka ‘mujahidin.’ This was the most momentous act in the growing China-Soviet split. No one in Washington seemed to see or understand it.

Forty years later, China is still wrestling with this problem. Beijing wants good relations with Taliban but is seriously scared by the notion of Islamic wild men who support freedom and independence for the Chinese-ruled Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang (Eastern Turkestan).

Meanwhile, the great American-Afghan money machine has ground to a halt as its produce is secreted away in US real estate and Swiss banks.

*

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: U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

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.

***

 

Health professionals in Australia, the UK and the US have expressed their deep concerns at Australia’s proposed acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines with UK and US assistance, stating that the plan will jeopardise global health and security.  Their concerns are set out in a briefing paper. 

IPPNW Co-President Dr Tilman Ruff said

“Humanity is in the midst of a major pandemic, and facing twin existential threats of dire urgency—global heating and the growing danger of nuclear war. COVID vaccines are still out of reach for most of the world’s poor people. If ever there was a time to build goodwill, and focus on cooperation to address complex global problems, that time is now.  Instead, the proposed submarines would increase tensions and militarisation across Asia and the Pacific region, fuel an arms race and risk deepening a new cold war involving China. They would embroil Australia in a nuclear war-fighting strategy, increase the danger of armed conflict erupting and escalating to nuclear war in which there could be no winners.”

Australia’s submarines are very likely to be fueled, as US and UK submarines are, by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is directly usable in nuclear weapons. The US and the UK have resisted and delayed efforts to convert their naval reactors to much less proliferation-prone low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU) as France and China have done.

The proposed Australian submarines could well encourage other states, such as South Korea, Japan and Iran to pursue a similar path.  Some within Australia, including within government, have used the recent announcement to call for Australia to embrace nuclear power and, alarmingly, there are calls for Australia to be prepared to acquire its own nuclear weapons.  Submarine reactors fuelled with HEU would provide raw material with which to achieve this goal.

Dr Sue Wareham, President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia), said,

“The nuclear weapons proliferation potential of this deal will be significant.  A government assurance on the matter is totally inadequate.  Other nations will see it differently.”

Adding to proliferation risks is the UK announcement in March of a planned 40% increase in its nuclear arsenal, which is in breach of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations.  The UK and US are modernising their nuclear arsenals, also in breach of their NPT commitment to disarm.

Dr Elisabeth McElderry, International Councillor of Medact (UK), said of the new agreement

“Resources are needed both at home and worldwide to improve health and care services, and to reduce the drivers of conflict, displacement and disease. It is very disappointing that the United Kingdom continues to promote armament exports, in this case with added nuclear dangers, which goes in the opposite direction of the UK Government statement in May of this year that ‘investing in conflict prevention is the right thing to do.“

There is the additional risk of accidents and terrorist attack. Such disasters while a nuclear-powered vessel is in port risks harmful radioactive contamination of cities.  Many cities around the world oppose visits of such vessels to their harbours for that reason.  A total of 8 nuclear-powered submarines have sunk because of accidents at sea between 1963 and 2003, contributing to the radioactive pollution of our oceans.

The high level radioactive waste from reactors poses a further long-term problem for which there is thus far no solution. Already, Australia’s problem of managing its much smaller amount of intermediate level radioactive waste is not resolved.

All three nations involved in this deal should turn their attention from arming the world to supporting global efforts for a nuclear weapons free world.  The most important step that they—and other nations that have not done so—could take to hasten this goal would be to join the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Dr David E. Drake, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA), noted

“Let’s not forget that ‘On the Beach’ depicted the end of the world, focused on Australia. Instead of ramping up a new cold war, we must cooperate to decrease tensions and work toward eliminating all weapons of mass destruction, while we still can.”

If Australia does proceed to acquire nuclear submarines, it should insist on LEU fuel and implement stringent safeguards, the submarines should be configured so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, and nothing about their construction or operation should impede Australia joining the TPNW.

All nations, including Australia, the US and the UK, should be doing absolutely everything possible to avoid a military escalation and confrontation with China, and reduce rather than exacerbate the danger of nuclear war.

*

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 USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine of the type Australia will soon be developing. Source: US Navy

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.

***

 

al-Quds [Jerusalem] reports that Palestinians in the West Bank greeted President Mahmoud Abbas’s UN speech, in which he pledged to take Israel to the International Criminal Court if its squatter-settlements weren’t withdrawn within a year, with widespread acclaim.

The International Criminal Court decided in March of this year that it has jurisdiction over the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza because the Palestine Authority has invited it to consider rights abuses there. Palestine is a signatory to the Statute of Rome, which established the ICC at the Hague in the late 1990s, and member states can ask the court to take up cases. Palestine was able to become a signatory because it was granted the status of non-member observer state at the UN by the General Assembly in 2012. This is the same status enjoyed by the Vatican.

Fatah greeted the speech as “an historic document” from the Palestinians to the world. Muhammad Gharib saw it as a gauntlet thrown down to international institutions demanding that they abide by their own principles and resolutions and that they cease their double standard when it comes to Palestine.

The Palestine National Council said that Friday’s speech before the UN General Assembly returned the Palestinian cause to its roots in that it focused on the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 181, which called for partition of British Mandate Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states, and resolution 194, which called for the return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine. The chair of the PNC, Salim Zanoun, underlined that the plan would require the unity of the various Palestinian parties and factions.

He pointed out the Abbas’s speech put the onus on international bodies, including the UN, to be responsible about the establishment of a Palestinian state with genuine sovereignty.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says he will not allow a Palestinian state to be formed, in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s stated support for a two-state solution. Despite Israeli attempts to depict the Palestinians as unwilling to negotiate, it seems clear that the road block is the Israeli government, which has put out of bounds the very goal of any negotiations before they could start.

Israel seized the Palestinian Territories by main force in 1967 and has egregiously violated international law by illegally annexing some of them and by flooding hundreds of thousands of its own citizens into the Palestinian West Bank, stealing land owned by Palestinian families on which to settle these squatters. Its occupation has a shape incompatible with the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention on Occupied territories of 1949, and so is itself illegal.

The Fatah Youth Movement said it would attempt to implement Abbas’s speech by improving communication among Palestinian youth and confronting the Israeli Occupation’s creeping annexation of Palestinian-owned land.

The Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA) praised the speech as a road map for Palestine in the coming phase. It also called for new Palestinian elections.

Russia’s Sputnik news service reports that political scientist and Palestine Authority adviser on international relations Osama Shaath said that Abbas’s speech placed a burden on the international community. He underlined Abbas’s “demand to hold an international peace conference under international auspices and under international supervision to implement United Nations resolutions, especially Resolution No. 2334.”

*

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.

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

Featured image: Image of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on February 27, 2017 [Mustafa Yalçın / Anadolu Agency]

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.

***

 

Multiple lawsuits are pending in the United States against Syngenta alleging the weedkilling chemical paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.

A notice of settlement was filed June 18, 2021 for several paraquat cases. See this document.

But more than 100 lawsuits remain pending.

The lawsuits name Syngenta as well as Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Growmark Inc. as defendants. Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Lawyers around the United States are advertising for plaintiffs, seeking to draw in thousands of people who’ve been exposed to paraquat and now suffer from Parkinson’s.

Here is a list of actions pending through Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) as of Aug. 2, 2021

• Harker v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. CGC-21-589755 (San Francisco Superior Court) (coordinated June 11, 2021)
• De La Vega v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01057. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated July 19, 2021)
• Louis Lombardo v. Syngenta et al., Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG21100757, filed on May 26, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
• Lonnie Owens et al. v. Syngenta et al., Contra Costa Superior Court; Case No. C21-01187, filed on June 4, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
• Borrelli v. Syngenta AG, et al. (Case No. MSC21-01217), filed June 24, 2021 in Contra Costa County Superior Court (coordinated July 23, 2021)
• Isaak v. Syngenta AG, et al., San Francisco Superior Court; Case No. CGC-21591254 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
• Rubino v. Syngenta, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C2101422 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
• Aguiar v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01373. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated August 2, 2021)

Multidistrict litigation

On April 7, 2021, the Fears Nachawati Texas-based law firm filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., asking that pending paraquat lawsuits be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California, the same federal court where Roundup litigation was consolidated. The case with the judicial panel is MDL No. 3004. The panel hearing on the matter was May 27 and on June 7, the panel approved the formation of the paraquat multidistrict litigation, assigning it to Judge  Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.

Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Iowa on May 3. The suit seeks “equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, including, but not limited to, the costs of diagnostic testing” for farmers and others exposed to paraquat who are allegedly at “increased risk” for Parkinson’s, according to the legal filing.

At least 86 lawsuits were pending within the MDL as of September 10, 2021.

Science

Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies.  Farmers use paraquat in the production of many crops, including corn, soy and cotton. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) said it found that “exposure to agricultural pesticides may increase a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” In 2011, AHS researchers reported that “participants who used paraquat or rotenone were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who didn’t use these chemicals.”

A more recent paper from AHS researchers stated that “Extensive literature suggests an association between general pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, with few exceptions, little is known about associations between specific pesticides and PD.”

Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive nervous system disorder that limits a person’s ability to control movement, causing tremors, loss of balance and eventually often leaving victims bedridden and/or bound to a wheelchair. The disease is not necessarily fatal but typically becomes severely debilitating.

Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, who recently authored a book about Parkinson’s, blames widespread exposure to herbicides such as paraquat, along with other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing, for the spread of the disease.

Acutely Toxic 

Along with fears about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s, paraquat is also known to be an extremely acutely toxic chemical that can quickly kill people who ingest very small amounts. In Europe, the sale of paraquat has been banned since 2007, but in the United States the pesticide is sold as a “Restricted Use Pesticide” due to “acute toxicity.”

As part of discovery in the Parkinson’s litigation, lawyers have obtained internal records from Syngenta and its predecessor corporate entities dating back to the 1960s. Many of these documents are sealed, but some have started to come to light.

Those unsealed discovery documents, which include copies of letters, minutes of meetings, study summaries, and emails, are being made available on this page.

Most of the documents unsealed to date deal with corporate discussions about how to keep paraquat herbicides on the market despite its deadliness, through measures designed to reduce accidental poisonings. Specifically, many of the documents detail an internal corporate struggle over the addition of an emetic, a vomit-inducing agent, to paraquat products.  Today, all Syngenta paraquat-containing products include an emetic called “PP796.”  Liquid paraquat-containing formulations from Syngenta also include a stenching agent to produce a foul odor, and a blue dye to differentiate the dark-colored herbicide from tea or cola or other beverages.

EPA Review 

Paraquat recently underwent the EPA’s registration review process,  and on August 2, 2021 the agency said paraquat would remain on the market with new safety measures aimed at reducing farmworker exposures. That followed the Oct. 23, 2020 release of a proposed interim decision (PID) for paraquat.  The interim decision proposed mitigation measures to reduce human health and ecological risks identified in the agency’s 2019 draft human health and ecological risk assessments.

The EPA had indicated it would likely ban most aerial spraying of paraquat, but after industry lobbying efforts, the agency said it would allow such use with restrictions around residential areas.

The EPA said that through collaboration with the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the agency completed a “thorough review” of the scientific information on paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease and concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. The agency published this “Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate the Relationship between Paraquat Dichloride Exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.”

USRTK will add documents to this page as they become available.

*

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.

***

 

By coincidence, perhaps, on the same day that President Biden hosted the first Quad summit, he also cleared the way for a senior executive of Huawei Technologies to return to Beijing — “removing one major irritant between the two superpowers,” as the New York Times put it. 

Meng Wanzhou’s release made headlines overshadowing the QUAD event. Beijing reciprocated instantly by releasing a former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor. Meng’s detention had “major geopolitical implications, further souring relations between Beijing and both Washington and Ottawa,” Washington Post noted. 

Perhaps, something of that “feel-good” rubbed on the QUAD joint statement, where Washington agreed that the grouping stood for “a free and open Indo-Pacific, which is also inclusive and resilient.”[Emphasis added.] 

Washington’s stubborn refusal to utter that 9-letter word “inclusive” was meant to be a jab at China, and the shift is a sign of realism. It hints at renewed overture to the ASEAN and an attempt to assuage the European sentiments aggrieved over the US pivot away from the transatlantic alliance. 

Contextually, as WaPo put it, “Coming on the heels of a diplomatic blowup over a US plan to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia [AUKUS], the Biden administration sought to play down the idea that the Quad grouping could become a new kind of trans-Pacific military alliance. Rather, US officials call it “informal” and nonmilitary. Biden also did not mention China by name during his address to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, though he told the gathering that he does not seek “a new Cold War.” 

The desire to counterbalance China drove the QUAD countries to invest in intellectual and diplomatic terms in the “Indo-Pacific” concept, but the issue of cohesion remained unresolved. Historically, multilateralism is a complex idea for Asian psyche, given their saga of national liberation from colonial rule in the last century and their trajectory of nation-building riveted on hard-won national sovereignty. 

Unease over China’s rise is simply not sufficient enough to rally behind the American flag. This remains the great fault line in the “Indo-Pacific” concept. Belatedly, the Americans seem to grasp that India cannot be made a compliant partner. 

While India’s relationship with China is far from optimal today, its abiding interest to get close to China is also self-evident. Simply put, geopolitics gives impetus for India to be an autonomous actor. 

India gains nothing out of antagonising China or being used as a proxy diplomatic weapon and, certainly, it has no reason to carry the burden of others’ rivalries with China. Fundamentally, India has its own strategic interests, like the ASEAN countries, and is a stakeholder in the stability of the Asian continent. 

So far, the QUAD’s output has been rather meagre. The joint statement once again speaks mostly in generalities. The only concrete outcome is the creation of the Quad Fellowship, which will provide 100 graduate fellowships to leading science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate students across the four countries. No small initiative, but not enough to write home about.     

When it comes to hot button issues, though, with all the huffing and puffing by the QUAD, China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains the more compelling international vision than the “Indo-Pacific”. It has caught the imagination of the world, as is apparent from the big attendance at the biannual BRI summits in China. Basically, BRI is flexible and specific, while “Indo-Pacific” is ideological and other-worldly. It is not difficult to see why the QUAD has a scratchy record. 

Washington has been desperately in need of some foreign-policy showpiece in the aftermath of the defeat and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan and it announced the  AUKUS. But the US behaviour towards France, a major key NATO ally, a nuclear power and a permanent UN Security Council member, is something unprecedented, even Trump did not allow himself such boorish behaviour. 

AUKUS has serious nuclear proliferation risks and violates the spirit of the NPT, as the US nuclear submarines are fuelled by HEU of above 90%, which is weapon-grade nuclear material. It undercuts the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and ASEAN countries’ efforts to build a non-free zone in Southeast Asia — all in all, severely undermining regional peace and stability. 

Meanwhile, France’s relations with Australia and the US are now severely damaged, whereas France also happens to be a serious Indo-Pacific power with significant sovereign interests, which hosts some 1.5 million citizens and more than 90% of its large EEZ (9 million km²) and maintains a military presence of 8,000 personnel to take care of this vast area.   

Make no mistake, France’s Indo-Pacific commitment will not weaken and it will step up efforts to build up a network of middle powers in the region, including India, outside the orbit of QUAD and AUKUS. The French and European’s inclusive visions for the Indo-Pacific are also convergent with the ASEAN approach. Clearly, the decision on AUKUS is a hasty move by a besieged US president who took heavy battering lately on the foreign policy front. Beijing is taking it calmly. read more

There are contrarian currents in play in the Indo-Pacific. Curiously, Beijing lobbied Australian parliament as recently as in early September to help it to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in a nuanced signal that the two economies have enormous potential for cooperation despite recent hiccups in their relationship. 

Chinese pundits envisage Canberra’s support to China in joining CPTPP in exchange for Beijing reopening its market to Australian products before the election next year. Unsurprisngly, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the Biden Administration to “revoke the wrong decision” on AUKUS. 

At any rate, Australia is a novice in building nuclear submarines. A Russian analyst wrote in Vzglyad newspaper: “Is it possible for the Australians to meet the deadlines?.. And this requires, firstly, shipyards in sufficient quantity to build submarines; secondly, workers and engineers; and thirdly, the supply of components from the United States, which can become the bottleneck of the project because of the existing crisis in American shipbuilding. Does Australia have all this in the right amount? The allies will not be able to help; they do not have enough themselves.”

The Americans themselves take five years to build one ‘Virginia’ from the point of laying the keel to delivery to the US Navy! Such being the case, Australia’s fleet of nuclear submarines armed with ballistic missiles will need several decades to see the light of day.

Meanwhile, trends emerging in Sino-US economic and trade development show great momentum so much so that the new Chinese ambassador in Washington Qin Gang noted thoughtfully the other day,

“If we compare China-US relations to a giant ship, then economic and trade cooperation has been its ballast and propeller. When the ship sails against heavy winds and huge waves, we need to add more strength to the ballast and propeller.” read more 

Suffice to say, Biden’s decision on Meng’s release is a big gesture alongside his quiet burial of the Covid-19 origin file. The ultimate litmus test for Beijing would be, arguably, that Biden orders that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is put back in the US State Departments’s list of terrorist groups. Biden has already proposed a summit meeting with President Xi Jinping. 

The message out of the QUAD summit is that the consummate statesman in Biden didn’t visualise it as a game-changing event to corner China. He passed on to Vice-President Kamala Harris the delegation level talks with PM Modi.

In diplomacy, long-winded statements become necessary when there is little of substance to convey. The QUAD statement has 2145 words, yet says so little that we already did not know. 

*

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 President Joe Biden at Quad Summit, White House, Sept. 24, 2021. Seated clockwise Australian PM Scott Morrison, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Japanese PM Yoshihide Suga & Indian PM Narendra Modi (Source: Indian Punchline)

British Government Shocking Report on Side Effects of Corona Vaccines: Strokes, Blindness, Miscarriages

By Great Reject, September 27, 2021

In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

By Peter Koenig, September 27, 2021

Ever since WHO mandated worldwide vaxx-certificates – a move directed and funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, not by WHO’s member states – the rope is tightening around the necks of those who decide not to go for the experimental not approved gene-therapy jab: They are not allowed in restaurants, or attending any indoor activity, be it sports or cultural events – not even the zoo.

EU Corruption? How did Ursula von der Leyen lose her vaccine text messages with Pfizer?

By Free West Media, September 27, 2021

The European Ombudsman has asked EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to explain how she lost the text messages she had exchanged with Pfizer’s CEO during the EU’s vaccine procurement talks.

The Great Chessboard: Will a Renewed U.S. ‘Operation Cyclone’ Threaten Afghanistan’s New Silk Road Future?

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, September 27, 2021

While watching a hegemonic wanna-be global overlord choke on humble pie is certainly satisfying, and while Afghanistan unquestionably has a renewed hope to recapture its ancient role as a pearl on the Silk Road uniting all cultures of the globe, something darker is also afoot.

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 27, 2021

The media has failed to remind us that in 2009 Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Afghanistan: Before and After US Intervention

By Prof. John Ryan, September 26, 2021

What I find astounding is that the Western media never mention that for a brief period of time Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support.

A New Nuclear Arms Race & Cold War Will Not Bring Security – Jeremy Corbyn

By Jeremy Corbyn, September 28, 2021

This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War. AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.

FDA Ignores Safety Committee’s Guidance, Authorizes Pfizer Booster for 65 and Older, Plus ‘High Risk’ Groups

By Megan Redshaw, September 28, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.

Sucharit Bhakdi: COVID-19 Vaccination Is Greatest Threat Humanity Ever Faced

By The Herland Report, September 27, 2021

In a new interview, he is very clear on his expert view of the untested vaccinations that are being pushed world wide without proper trials: It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this vaccination.

Australia Records 10X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Recorded Deaths Following ALL Vaccines for Past 20 Years 

By Brian Shilhavy, September 27, 2021

The Australian government database for adverse reactions tracks 78 different vaccines for the past 20 years, with a total of 47 deaths following vaccination during the years 2000 through 2020.

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.

***

 

If you think elementary, middle, and high school students know too little history, geography, and government, try asking them about the corporations that command so many hours of their day, their attention, what they consume, and their personal horizons.

Howard Zinn published A Young People’s History of the United States (2009), to go with his best-selling pioneering work, A People’s History of the United States (1980), but he didn’t do justice to all the modern corporate controls of just about every facet of American life, including educational institutions.

Today, school children are engulfed by corporate apps and software, textbooks biased toward the corporate definitions of an economy, and myths about “free markets.” For years free school materials and videos produced or sponsored by business groups, including the coal and nuclear industries, have flooded elementary classes. Our report: Hucksters in the Classroom: A Review of Industry Propaganda in Schools by Sheila Harty (1979), documented this mercantile assault on education. Students even take tests designed by corporate institutions.

Eleven-year-olds have asked me “What is a corporation?” Teenagers ask, “What’s corporate crime?” or “What’s a company union?” These are the same youngsters who click on the handcuffing fine-print contracts of internet companies that own social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok. These are the same youngsters who are lied to daily by corporations about harmful junk foods and drugs, and whose parents overwhelmingly work in anti-union offices and factories.

Forget about students knowing or learning about “The Commons,” although they listen to music broadcast on the public airwaves and probably have visited a national park. (For more on The Commons see: Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons by David Bollier). Students haven’t studied “corporate welfare,” even though taxpaying parents subsidize these government giveaways, handouts, and bailouts to demanding, mismanaged, or criminal corporations with power.

Schools forever have separated students from giant slices of reality – historical and contemporary. Much of this ignored or distorted reality shapes present conditions, such as the various controls of the many by the few. But today’s corporate plutocracy is at a different level of penetration altogether. Shucking past taboos, corporate marketeers hard sell directly to children bypassing or undermining parental authority. What they sell is obesity, diabetes, promiscuity, dangerous addictions and violence in their merciless “entertainment programs” and narratives about armed force, however illegal it may be.

In terms of sheer time, range of exposure, and planned peer group pressures, corporations are raising our children day and night. Big companies do strategic planning about everything affecting our children. There are no longer adequate limits and boundaries on corporatism or protections of commercial-free zones.

It’s getting worse. Eyewear for “augmented reality” from Facebook and rapidly expanding “artificial intelligence” induce dependency and more sedentary living. People from Bill Joy to Stephen Hawking to Elon Musk have strongly warned about these emerging technologies and the consequential loss of freedom and democracy.

I’d like to invite some open-minded educators to consider a six-hour curricula for late middle school through high school students on the modern global corporation. Hour One could be called “Big Corporations are Different from You and Me” illuminating this fast-dominating “artificial person” with all the rights of real humans yet structurally escaping from responsibility, a status of “privileges and immunities” under corporate law[lessness].

Hour Two could be devoted to the history of corporate power so heavily characterized by the costs of their amassing wealth – costs to workers, communities, small businesses, voters, consumers, patients, our governing ways, and, yes, students. Having been told repeatedly about how companies “built America,” students should learn about all the “NOs.” Corporations were operationally entrenched against the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, union organizing, the minimum wage, universal health insurance, early solar energy, mass transit, public campaign financing, and governmental institutions accountable to the citizenry. The most recent big “NOs” are against consumer, labor, and environmental justice and, of course, waging peace instead of forever wars of mayhem and profit have filled volumes of documentation.

Hour Three might run students through all the attempts and reforms by the American people to reign in the destructive, unjust excesses of large companies and their controlling ideology of corporatism. What were the results from all those widespread protests, regulatory actions, prosecutions, and electoral reforms? What are the successes of the peace movement, environmental groups and initiatives by workers, consumers, creators, and defenders of The Commons, (such as the public lands and public airwaves), investors and savers for justice and the common good? What happened to the corporate tax system, the drive for shareholder rights and corporate democracy and, most importantly, the rule of law over corporate power?

Hour Four, Hour Five, and Hour Six – well, to be continued. That is, if we hear from people interested enough in having this proposal described further.

*

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 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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Despite branding itself as a “people’s summit,” the 2021 United Nations Food Systems gathering prioritized the perspectives and interests of large corporations, shut out small producers, and peddled sham solutions to the intensifying global crises of hunger and climate change.

That’s the view of an international coalition of food sovereignty advocates, which on Saturday issued a statement blasting the U.N. Food Systems Summit (FSS) for “paving the way for greater control of big corporations over global food systems and misleading the people through corporate-led false solutions.”

“The U.N. FSS did not listen to the voices of marginalized rural peoples, nor forward real solutions to the food, biodiversity, and climate crises,” said Sylvia Mallari, global co-chairperson of the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty. “Instead, it let powerful nations and big corporations play an even bigger role in determining food and agricultural policies.”

“The U.N. has finally made it clear what ‘multilateralism’ is all about—paying lip service to the people while skewing priorities for the interests of imperialists and monopoly capitalists,” Mallari added.

In the months leading up to the FSS—which took place during the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week—food justice campaigners repeatedly warned that the event had been “hijacked” by big businesses and wealthy private donors, including Nestlé and the Gates Foundation.

Following the event, advocates argued their warnings were justified, pointing specifically to a number of statements and pledges made during the FSS to spotlight its corporate-friendly nature and exclusion of small food producers from its proposed solutions:

• U.S. President Joe Biden said that Washington would spend $10 billion to “end hunger and invest in food systems at home and abroad,” half of which will go to the USAID’s Feed the Future initiative in various countries. This includes a “large-scale food fortification” program in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Through its co-founder Melinda Gates, the BMGF, which has been heavily criticized for its role in pushing for destructive Green Revolution technologies and seed privatization that favor big agribusinesses, also addressed the U.N. FSS and announced a $922 million commitment to food fortification. Biofortification promotes industrial monocultures over agroecological food diversity, and ushers in the next generation of genetically-modified crops, such as the Gates-funded Vitamin-A “Golden Rice” recently approved for commercial use in the Philippines.
• Additionally, the U.S. Feed the Future initiative works with US businesses such as Cargill, Pepsico, Corteva Agriscience, the Coca-Cola Company, Mars Inc, Unilever, John Deere, etc. to supposedly “fight global hunger.” In 2020, $1.2 million Feed the Future funds to help “combat the economic toll of Covid-19” went to “private sector partners” in Africa—these include agrochemical, fruit export, and microfinance companies—instead of small farmers most affected by the pandemic.
• In his speech to the UN FSS, World Bank president David Malpass cited increased financing for “climate-smart” agriculture. “Climate-smart” agriculture is the euphemism used by agrochemical and seed companies for proprietary techno-fixes such as GM crops. The U.S. and United Arab Emirates also advanced the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate), which aims to increase public and private investment in “climate-smart agriculture and food systems innovation” at the UNFSS, with the BMGF expressing its support.
• World Bank’s Malpass also mentioned “moving away from policies that favor rice and other staples over fruit and vegetables,” which, for the Global South means intensified neoliberal policies that facilitate grabbing of farmers’ land planted with staple food in favor of export-oriented plantations.
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) director general Qu Dongyu talked about targeted interventions for digital and “technologically advanced” innovations, and failed to mention support for agroecological approaches. For “accelerating the transformation of agri-food systems at country level,” the FAO will use its Hand-In-Hand Initiative—an “innovative business model” which creates “matchmaking” opportunities between partners and recipient countries in the Global South. Partners include the private sector, even the agrochemical giant Syngenta.

Hardly a fringe assessment of the FSS, the food sovereignty coalition’s critique of the summit was echoed by Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food.

“The summit is being led by scientists and research institutes who are pro-corporate sector,” Fakhri said in an interview with The Guardian. “People say, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s see if it is the ‘people’s summit’ it is claiming to be. But they have failed in what they had set out to do. It is not the people’s summit. It is elitist.”

Fakhri added that while corporations may not have played a direct role “in the day-to-day operations of the summit,” the “leadership picked comes from organizations that believe corporations are part of the solution.”

As The Guardian noted, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ “choice of Agnes Kalibata, the former Rwandan minister for agriculture, to lead the summit was met with protests last year, given her role as president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), which has been accused of promoting damaging, business-focused practices.”

In an effort to counter the business-dominated U.N. event, thousands of rural farmers, civil society organizations, and food sovereignty advocates convened their own Global People’s Summit (GPS) on Food Systems, which aimed to “expose and oppose the control of big corporations over food and agriculture the corporate capture of the U.N.”

At the close of the three-day GPS, which consisted of virtual events and on-the-ground protests, participants adopted a “People’s Declaration” that decried “a pandemic of systemic and perpetual hunger being perpetrated by big business through the globalized food economy—a system characterized by unsustainable monoculture production, environmental plunder, and waste; as well as wars and conflicts fueled by imperialist competition for resources, land, and markets.” Attendees also resolved to carry out “People’s Action Plans” devised at GPS workshops and public forums.

“We believe that an equitable food system can only be built on the people’s right to land and livelihoods, and to decent working and living conditions for all,” the declaration reads. “This means that food production must be decided by the sovereign will of the people, based on their particular circumstances, priorities, and needs. Profit motives of corporations—euphemistically called market forces—should not determine what food to produce, how to produce it, and for whom.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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 Food Tank

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 way things were in the US/West long ago no longer exists.

State-sponsored 9/11 was a game-changer, the mother of all false flags until way-surpassed by deceptively giving garden variety flu a scary new name.

What followed was unjustifiably justified by an invented SARS-CoV-2 virus that was never isolated in lab analysis and doesn’t exist.

The same goes for long ago Boston. The way it was when I grew up also no longer exists.

It was a time when inner city school teachers taught, students learned, and classroom decorum was conducive to learning.

The way things were let ordinary kids like himself, with nothing special going for them, advance to higher education and benefits it brought at the time — that no longer exist for most youths in the US today, nor in the West overall.

Back then, higher education was affordable for virtually anyone, the will to successfully complete academic studies the only requirement.

Attending today in the US entraps millions of students in debt bondage because of exorbitantly higher education costs — at a time when career opportunities are a shadow of what they were post-WW II in the late 40s, 50s and 60s.

New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs helped millions of Americans avoid poverty — social programs that worked, greatly eroded and heading toward disappearing altogether today.

The post-WW II Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) provided college or vocational education for 7.8 million returning vets.

Another 2.4 million got VA-backed low-interest, no down payment home loans at a time when their average cost was around $5,000 — letting millions of families afford them.

Strong unions and high-paying factory jobs with good benefits elevated millions of Americans to middle-class status, what’s fast disappearing today.

The economy then grew most years at around 3.5%.

Through the 1960s, blue-collar workers were the biggest buyers of many luxury goods and services, including homes and autos.

What once was back then is a distant memory today.

My hometown Boston’s dismal state is replicated nationwide.

Protracted depression conditions exist for most working-age Americans.

Based on how economic data were calculated pre-1990, unemployment today is 25.4% — not the phony lowball 5.2%.

CPI inflation is 13.2%, not the officially reported 5.4% — nor reported 4% excluding food and energy.

Everyone who eats, drives a car, pays rent or services a mortgage, has medical bills, heats and/or air conditions living space, and has kids in college knows more about inflation than talking head TV economists paid to deceive, not inform viewers.

After all things flu/covid obliterated what remained of things as they were when I grew up long ago, tyranny became the law of the land.

Most Americans were mind-manipulated to go along with what harms their health and fundamental rights — on the phony pretext of what protects them.

Jabs and health passports — digital or otherwise — are symbols of modern-day tyranny.

Along with all else flu/covid related, they transformed the US/West more than ever into societies unsafe and unfit to live in.

On September 24, my hometown Boston Globe deceptively claimed that flu/covid “passports are the ticket back to normal (sic).”

What the Globe considers “normal” is hugely abnormal by any definition of normality. See below.

As a boy and adolescent, my favorite entertainment was attending a Red Sox game at Boston’s Fenway Park — when the league’s biggest stars were Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.

As an older teenager and youth through college, it was attending Boston Pops concerts at Symphony Hall during its golden age under conductor Arthur Fiedler.

The only constraint to attending was the admission price when Fenway Park bleacher tickets cost 60 cents and unreserved Symphony Hall second balcony seats were practically free at 50 cents, including ones overlooking the stage and podium where I and friends usually sat by showing up early to get them.

What I remember fondly was replaced with the following:

Red Sox attendance requires compliance with so-called “health and safety” rules unrelated to either.

Fans may not carry bags to the ballpark, except for medical devices or diapers.

Masks are required beneath the stands at refreshment locations, other facilities and restrooms.

Unjabbed fans must where masks that don’t protect at all times everywhere inside Fenway Park.

For the upcoming basketball and hockey seasons, proof of having been fully jabbed or gotten a meaningless negative PCR test result is required for attendance.

The Globe noted that verifying the above for thousands of ticket-holders won’t “be a piece of cake” for checkers.

The same goes for fans forced to put up with what no one should tolerate.

Defying science, the Globe falsely claimed that the above practice is “doing the right thing (sic),” adding:

“And it certainly isn’t alone among sports and performance venues around the state.”

Attending Boston Symphony or Pops concerts is worlds apart from my fond memories.

Proof of being toxic-jabbed or a negative PCR test proving nothing is required for entry into Symphony Hall.

The same goes for virtually all theaters and entertainment venues in the city.

The price of admission includes having sacrificed health and well-being.

Proving it should for access to most other public places throughout the city and state should be required, according to the Globe, saying:

“(I)t behooves the public sector to make the job of checking the authenticity of those (jabs) easier.”

“And that means some form of uniform (jab) ‘passport’ — a QR code, a chip, some kind of digital proof that the bearer has indeed gotten the requisite number of shots.”

According to the Globe, Massachusetts “has fallen behind the curve (sic),” adding:

Yet Governor Charlie Baker said he’s exploring the notion of mandating health passports statewide.

“Getting to the point where there’s a relatively simple process for people to credential the fact that they’ve been (fully jabbed) will be important for a whole bunch of reasons,” he falsely claimed.

The draconian practice is mandated in New York and California, notably in Israel as well.

Children’s Hospital in Boston (rated the nation’s best) developed a so-called SMART Health Card.

The Globe called on Governor Baker to show “leadership on this issue (sic).”

If digital and/or other health passports are mandated for access to most public places, the city and state I grew up in long ago will become more unfit to live in than already.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

To mark the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, September 26, Veterans For Peace is publishing an Open Letter to President Biden: Just Say NO to Nuclear War! The letter calls on President Biden to step back from the brink of nuclear war by declaring and implementing a policy of No First Use and by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

VFP also urges President Biden to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to provide global leadership for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The full letter will be published on the VFP website and offered to mainstream newspapers and alternative news sites. A shorter version is being shared with VFP chapters and members who may wish to publish it in local newspapers, possibly as a letter-to-the-editor.

*

Dear President Biden,

We are writing you on the occasion of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which has been declared by the United Nations General Assembly to be celebrated annually on September 26.

As veterans who have fought in multiple U.S. wars, we are concerned about the very real danger of a nuclear war that would kill millions of people and could possibly even destroy human civilization. Therefore we are asking to have input into the Nuclear Posture Review that your administration has recently initiated.

Exactly who is conducting this Nuclear Posture Review? Hopefully not the same think tanks that have lobbied for disastrous wars that have killed and wounded thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Hopefully not the same Cold Warriors who have militarized U.S. foreign policy. Or the retired generals who cheerlead for war on the cable networks. And we certainly hope not the defense industry itself, which makes obscene profits from war and war preparations, and which has a vested interest in the “modernization,” of nuclear weapons.

Actually, it is our fear that these are exactly the type of “experts” who are currently conducting the Nuclear Posture Review. Will they recommend that we continue to play “nuclear chicken” with Russia, China, North Korea and other nuclear-armed states? Will they recommend that the U.S. continues to spend billions of dollars building new and more destabilizing nuclear weapons and “missile defense” systems? Do they believe that a nuclear war can be won?

The U.S. public does not even know who is conducting the Nuclear Posture Review. There is apparently no transparency at all in a process which could determine the future of our nation and of our planet. We ask that you make public the names and affiliations of all those at the Nuclear Posture Review table. Furthermore, we request that Veterans For Peace and other peace and disarmament organizations be given a seat at the table. Our only vested interest is in achieving peace, and in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe.

When the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force on January 22, 2021, you became the first President to face the consequential task of a Nuclear Posture Review in the face of International Law declaring nuclear weapons to be illegal. You now hold it within your power to demonstrate to the American people and to the world that you are committed to the goal of a nuclear-free world.

Veterans For Peace urges you to do the following:

1. Adopt and announce a policy of “No First Use” of nuclear weapons and make that policy credible by publicly decommissioning U.S. ICBMs that can only be used in a first strike;
2. Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert (Launch On Warning) and store warheads separately from delivery systems, thereby reducing the probability of an accidental, unauthorized, or unintentional nuclear exchange;
3. Cancel plans to replace the entire US arsenal with enhanced weapons at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next 30 years;
4. Redirect the money thus saved into environmentally and socially sound programs, including the accelerated cleanup of highly toxic and radioactive waste left during eight decades of the nuclear cycle;
5. End the sole, unchecked authority of any president (or his or her delegates and their delegates) to launch a nuclear attack and require Congressional approval of any use of nuclear weapons;
6. Comply with our obligations under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
7. Sign and ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;
8. Phase out nuclear energy, stop producing depleted uranium weapons, and stop uranium mining, processing and enrichment;
9. Clean up radioactive sites from the nuclear cycle and develop an environmentally and socially sound nuclear waste disposal program; and
10. Fund health care and compensation for victims of radiation.

It will be a real leap forward for transparency and for our democracy if representatives of peace and disarmament NGO’s are given access to this critically important process. We represent millions of people who want nothing more than to see the United States make a dramatic “Pivot to Peace.” What better place to start than to step back from the brink of nuclear war? The Billions of U.S. tax dollars saved could be applied to the very real national security threats of the Climate Crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. What better legacy for the Biden Administration than to begin a process that could lead to worldwide nuclear disarmament!

Sincerely,

VETERANS FOR PEACE

*

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.

---

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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.

***

 

This month, the leaders of nation states from around the world have been gathered in New York City to attend the 76^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Covid, climate and biodiversity are among the topics they are expected to address. Indeed, on September 21, in his sobering yet passionate address to the assembly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres focused attention on all three crises.

Since the turn of this century, I have been involved in biodiversity conservation in several places in North America and India, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the U.S.–Canada borderlands; the desert in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands; and the mangrove forests of the Sundarbans in the India–Bangladesh borderlands. Such biodiversity conservation efforts also take into account environmental justice and rights of Indigenous peoples, a form of collective engagement I call, ‘multispecies justice’. Drawing from these experiences, I offer my humble assessments in this moment of entangled crises and great cultural and political divides for all to consider.

I was born and lived the first twenty-two years of my life in the global South, in India. And the past thirty-one years, I have lived in the global North, in the United States. I consider myself a bridge between North and the South. And even though I do not have a degree in civil engineering, I like to say that professionally, I’m always “Building Bridges” across and among varieties of differences—places and peoples, human and nonhuman kin, academic disciplinary silos and archipelagoes, and academia and the communities in which we live and work.

In his address to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Guterres spoke about the urgent need to build bridges.

“I see 6 Great Divides—6 Grand Canyons—that we must bridge now,” the Secretary-General said and then listed: peace, climate, the gap between rich and the poor, gender, the digital divide, and the divide among generations. Even though the biodiversity crisis didn’t make his list, the Secretary-General did briefly mention the “Shocking biodiversity loss.”

Snow geese over the Coastal Plain, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Photo courtesy of Subhankar Banerjee.

A North-South divide

I now speak of a great divide that exists in the intensifying human-caused biodiversity crisis, a North-South Divide, and the need to bridge that chasm.

After several postponements due to the pandemic, the UN Biodiversity Conference COP-15 was recently rescheduled as a two-part event: the first of which (online only) will be largely procedural and will take place from 11 through 15 October 2021, and the second will be in-person in Kunming, China, and will take place from 25 April through 8 May 2022. During the in-person meeting next year, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is expected to draft and adopt a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

As we slowly march toward the Kunming Conference, I’ve been taking a close look at the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal that the North has been pushing, a proposal that is masquerading as “global,” but in reality was largely developed by scientists who live in the United States and Europe.

The 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal may work well for the North, including the United States where it is currently being advanced by the Biden-Harris administration under the banner, “America the Beautiful.” It has taken nearly 150 years, since the founding of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872, for the United States to arrive at this point when 12% of land is considered protected. How will the United States add 18% to reach a total of 30% in less than ten years? Is the goal overly ambitious? Perhaps there will be a new way of assessing what counts as protected, as the E&E News in a recent article alluded to, “When it comes to ‘30×30’, everything counts until it doesn’t.”

For the poorer nations of the global South, however, the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal is not about creative assessments and accounting. If implemented, it would lead to a colossal disaster, including likely mass evictions of Tribal and poor peoples. We must tread this water with care and caution.

The proposal is coming from the North and so, I first focus on the North.

It’s not that eminent biodiversity scientists like Edward O. Wilson and Thomas E. Lovejoy, whose scholarship and advocacy provided the foundation for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal, do not have big ideas for wildlife conservation. Nor is it that a billion-dollar wildlife conservation initiative like “Campaign for Nature” does not know how to popularize and implement a wildlife conservation agenda. Nor is it that the influential “The age of extinction” series of the Guardian does not know how to publish some important articles on wildlife conservation.

Buff-breasted paradise kingfisher at “Kingfisher Park,” Julatten, North Queensland. Image by Graham Winterflood via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem is this: the scientists and the conservation leaders of the global North do not know how to talk to the grassroots conservationists of the global South when it comes to biodiversity conservation. They are simply not interested in engaging in sincere listening and learning. They have long been arrogant and authoritarian in their colonial approaches to conservation and never considered building global biodiversity proposals that would be rights-based, inclusive and justice-attentive. They also keep amplifying each other’s ideas and agendas without ever pausing to do a self-critique. For example, Guardian’s “The age of extinction” series has yet to publish a critical analysis of the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal as it may affect the poorer nations of the global South. Part of the reason may be because the series is in part supported by the Wyss Foundation, which is the primary funder of the “Campaign for Nature” initiative that has been advocating for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal. Is Guardian losing journalistic autonomy due to this close association?

So, how do the grassroots conservationists and Tribal advocates of the global South (this writer included) rise up against the tyranny of colonial conservation of the global North?

Come along with me on a bumpy ride, in which we expand our conversations to also include a little bit about Covid and climate, in addition to biodiversity. All three crises are simultaneously illuminating a chasm filled with injustices, between the North and the South, between the rich and the poor, a chasm that is only growing in scale and severity.

From Gandhinagar to ‘Species in Peril’

Late February 2020. Gandhinagar, India. I have come to attend the UN migratory species conservation summit CMS COP13, the last time a fully in-person global biodiversity summit could take place. Over the course of the few days of the gathering in the beautiful Mahatma Mandir Convention and Exhibition Center, I learned a lot about how conservation of wildlife in the global South is not a simple one-size-fits-all top-down approach but rather a daily practice and negotiation with challenging issues. How do you live with tigers? With elephants? With rhinoceros? No easy answers, only creative accommodations.

In particular, “Elephant Conservation Beyond Borders” was a memorable panel. No one talked about helping to save the endangered Asian elephants simply by increasing “Protected Areas” but instead, human rights defenders and species conservationists sat side-by-side and discussed transnational co-operation that also took into consideration the plight of the Rohingya refugees who were resettled along the migration corridors of elephants in Bangladesh. I learned that elephant conservation is no easy task in crowded South Asia.

Elephants have the right of way on Highway SH-78 in the Western Ghats, India. Image courtesy of Subhankar Banerjee.

I returned to the U.S. at the end of that month. Within a few weeks, we learned of Covid, cases started to rise, and lockdowns began to get instituted. But upon realizing that the root causes of the coronavirus pandemic are situated in the intensifying biodiversity crisis, specifically the destruction of wildlife habitats and trade of wildlife, I founded the Species in Peril project at UNM in April 2020. At the time, I was foolishly hopeful, like many around the world, that the pandemic would bring the global community together—to co-operate with each other, to share ideas and resources, to listen to and support each other. Additionally, I was also hopeful that the pandemic would finally bring the much-needed attention to the biodiversity crisis that continues to fester from public inattention. That did not happen, at least not at the level and in the manner many of us had hoped that it might.

“Our Land, Our Nature”

On September 20, Andrea Germanos wrote in Common Dreams that “A new analysis projecting that 100 million Covid-19 vaccines stockpiled by rich nations and set to expire by the end of the year could be left to waste is prompting an outcry from social justice campaigners who warn of a potential atrocity as poor nations are refused access to doses.” The next day, in his address to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General António Guterres said this as a matter of fact: “A majority of the wealthier world vaccinated. Over 90 percent of Africans still waiting for their first dose. This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity.”

Fearing that such low levels of vaccinations would force inadequate participation of environmental justice advocates and Tribal leaders from the global South at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference COP26 scheduled to take place this coming November in Glasgow, Scotland, environmental campaigners and Indigenous leaders have issued calls to postpone the UN conference until the majority of the world has been vaccinated and participation from the global South would be appropriate and adequate. It remains to be seen what the United Nations decides in the coming weeks.

Ignoring similar calls with concerns, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) went forward and hosted their World Conservation Congress in Marseille, France earlier this month, with a hybrid model. The IUCN has been a leading proponent of the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal for several years now.

Last month, ahead of the IUCN Congress, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights released a 36-page policy brief, “Human rights-based approaches to conserving biodiversity: equitable, effective and imperative.” Referencing a post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft that was released in July, the brief urges that “in light of past failures, the achievement of the Framework’s conservation goals demands a dramatic departure from ‘conservation as usual’.”

What are those “past failures”?

I offer one example from personal experience: the UN forest conservation program REDD. According to the UN, the acronym REDD stands for, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation,” but which many Indigenous peoples define instead as “Reaping profits from Evictions, land grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of biodiversity.” Tom Goldtooth, executive director of Indigenous Environmental Network, pointed out that, “REDD is promoting what could be the biggest land grab of all time.” I first learned about REDD in December 2009, from leaders of the Indigenous Environmental Network, when we participated at the Klimaforum09, the counter-summit shadowing the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference COP-15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. “Everyone who cares about our future, forests, Indigenous Peoples and human rights should reject REDD because it is irremediably flawed, cannot be fixed and because, despite efforts to develop safeguards for its implementation, REDD will always be potentially genocidal,” Goldtooth said.

A family taking part in a REDD project in Brazil called the Consortium and Densified Economic Reforestation Project (RECA) harvests forest products. Image courtesy of RECA.

Is the current 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal a reincarnation of REDD with new bells and whistles but no significant change in the process of how it was developed? Like REDD, does 30×30 also exclude the voices, aims and wishes of the Tribal and other poor peoples of the global South?

Following the release of the policy brief from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Fiore Longo, head of Survival International’s conservation campaign said that, “Many Indigenous peoples and Survival have been saying for decades that the fortress conservation model pushed by big conservation organizations like WWF and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is disastrous for both nature and tribal peoples. This policy brief from the UN expert on human rights and environment says the same thing, loud and clear. It’s past time for these organizations and governments to abandon their failed, racist and colonial model and put human rights and indigenous peoples at the heart of conservation and the fight against climate change.”

Unsurprisingly, protests erupted in Marseille, organized by Survival International who highlighted the policy brief and brought sharp focus to the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal.

Survival International also hosted a counter-congress, “Our Land, Our Nature,” in Marseille on 2-3 September to “discuss how to decolonize conservation.” The organizers asserted that “The conservation industry’s bid to make 30% of the world ‘Protected Areas’ and the claim that ‘Nature Based Solutions’ will solve biodiversity loss and climate change are wrong,” and highlighted the aims of the counter-Congress stating that, “This alternative congress will expose these as colonial and false solutions to the crises we are facing today, and as approaches that devastate the best guardians of the natural world: the Indigenous peoples who safeguard 80% of biodiversity.”  (watch the full conference on the “Our Land, Our Nature” website from this link).

Is India doomed?

I now offer a concrete example with a deeper dive into the call for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal as it relates to India, the country of my birth.

A group of sixteen scientists, fourteen of whom live and work in the United States and Europe, one in China, and one in Sri Lanka, wrote a paper to chart a path for mitigating the biodiversity crisis, “A Global Deal for Nature,” which was published in Science Advances in April 2019. The paper calls “to conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030,” which is “viewed as a milestone toward the larger end goal of half of the planet protected by 2050,” a call Edward O. Wilson issued in his 2016 book, Half Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life.

There is a color-coded map in the “A Global Deal for Nature” paper which shows expected levels of protection by 2030: dark green represents areas that already have at least 30% protection; lighter green represents at least 30% protected and remaining land that can be candidate for protection; orange represents 20-30% protected and remaining; and solid red represents less than 20% protected and remaining. Except a few patches of green, almost all of South Asia looks red or orange. Almost all of India is solid red.

Levels of protection by 2030. Map via the 2019 article in Science Advances, “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets,” by E. Dinerstein et al.

The map, along with the call for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal, may make you believe that India and South Asia don’t have much to contribute to global species conservation—a sad situation, isn’t it?

It also raises important questions: Does India even have much animal and plant species left? Is advancing biodiversity conservation a hopeless endeavor in India? Is biodiversity a thing of the past in the denuded and densely populated India?

As it turns out, India, with only 2.4% of the world’s land area, is home to 7-8% of all recorded species on Earth; has 4 of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots; and is considered to be a mega-diverse country.

The post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft includes a proposal to protect 30% of Earth’s lands and seas by 2030. If that proposal does get included and adopted in the final Framework next year in Kunming, China, as a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole Earth, how will India respond?

Will India start to evict millions of Tribal and poor peoples from their homes to satisfy the UN biodiversity goal?

Sadly, such a prospect came dangerously close to becoming a reality two years ago. Urged by a group of wildlife conservation organizations in India, the Supreme Court of India ruled in February 2019 to evict millions of forest dwelling peoples from their homes. “A verdict from India’s Supreme Court has ordered 20 state governments to evict 1.5 million families living on forest land before the 24th of July,” the IWGIA (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs) wrote on 6 March 2019. The IWGIA further pointed out that “These families live in and around 500 wildlife sanctuaries and 90 national parks; but many live there sustainably and have protected the forests long before these areas were declared parks and sanctuaries.”

Fortunately, that horrendous mass eviction did not get realized as was desired by the wildlife conservation organizations; the issue has since been caught up in India’s bureaucratic and legal quagmire.

A Tribal woman cleaning grains in Andhra Pradesh, India. Photo by ICRISAT/Flickr.

“Varieties of Environmentalism”

I urge all environmental justice campaigners and Tribal human rights advocates in the global South and their allies in the global North, including the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, to take a close look at the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal that now exists in the post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft, and do all that is necessary to make it null-and-void for the global South, and force the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to start from scratch and build a UN Global Biodiversity Framework with a process that is inclusive for the North and the South.

Biodiversity conservation is contextual. What works for one place and in a particular culture may not work for another place and in another culture. What makes biodiversity conservation so beautiful is that it is a pluriverse—so many ideas, so many practices, so many forms of human-nonhuman kinship that exist around the world, which in a different context, a quarter-century ago, Indian historian Ramachandra Guha and Spanish ecological-economist Juan Martinez-Alier called Varieties of Environmentalism.

We would do well to speak again of “varieties of environmentalism” as it relates to biodiversity conservation. Any effort to build a Global Biodiversity Framework must begin with sincere listening and learning from it. And it would need to be inclusive and justice-attentive. If we can make that happen, we will have built a bridge between the North and the South for more just biodiversity conservation.

*

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.

Subhankar Banerjee is editor of Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point and co-editor of Routledge Companion to Contemporary Art, Visual Culture, and Climate Change. He is the Lannan Foundation Endowed Chair and a professor of Art & Ecology at the University of New Mexico where he serves as the founding director of both the UNM Center for Environmental Arts and Humanities and the Species in Peril project.

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.

***

 

Since its announcement last week, AUKUS has faced growing international opposition, including from Governments often closely allied with the US, UK and Australia on the global stage, with France ending its contract to supply submarines to Australia.

It has also been met with incredulity from peace and disarmament groups across the world.

This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War.

AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.

The agreement includes cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and underwater capabilities, as well as long-range strike capabilities. In terms of nuclear weapons, AUKUS includes plans to set up an Australian nuclear powered submarine fleet, brokered with the US and Britain.

This is a dangerous development. Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, is not participating in the pact, but is also clear that its “no nuclear” policy means that any Australian nuclear-powered submarines will be barred from its ports and waters.

Clearly explaining the position, New Zealand’s Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said “all partners are well versed and very clear on our position on nuclear powered vessels and also nuclear weapons. Our legislation means no vessels that are partially or fully powered by nuclear energy is able to enter our internal borders.”

Earlier this year, the Tories committed to spending £24 billion on defence including even more resources on an expanded nuclear weapons arsenal of up to 260 warheads, against our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.)

Now they are breaking this treaty again by supplying weapons-grade uranium to Australia.

Kate Hudson of CND has said, “This is yet another breach of international law by our government, hard on the heels of the nuclear arsenal increase.”

The cost is enormous. There is unlimited money for weapons of mass destruction, yet at the same time the Government claims it can’t afford to keep the £20 uplift to Universal Credit or give nurses a decent pay rise.

Boris Johnson formally denies that Britain is part of a new Cold War with China, yet it is more and more commonly accepted internationally that the UK is the US’ major follower in pushing more hostile relations with China, despite the obvious danger of a cold war becoming an actual war – or series of proxy conflicts – in the future.

In fact, it seems the Government is the most hawkish component of the new alliance – a Stop the War Coalition press release has noted that “US officials have briefed that the UK government has been pushing hard for strong military involvement in the region as part of its push towards ‘Global Britain.’”

After Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and recent speeches, it was hoped by many that the end of the “war on terror” and its policy of regime change under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” would mean a new push for diplomacy and co-operation, but instead the fear is that resources will be re-directed to a military build-up in Oceania.

In 2020 the US spent more on “defence” than the next 11 countries combined, and a real test of Biden’s Presidency will be if he substantially cuts this spending rather than re-directs it.

In Australia opposition is growing, with former Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asked for clarity on whether the new submarines could be deployed in the midst of a conflict with China in the Pacific, as well as expressing grave concerns regarding Australia’s own nuclear NPT commitments.

Another former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said AUKUS is a “further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty” and warned that “if the United States military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK47 rifles in pickup trucks, what chance would it have in a full-blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia?”

His concerns reflect the fact that Australia will now be dependent on American technology and know-how to maintain these submarines, in the same way that the UK is totally dependent on the US for “our” Trident nuclear weapons system.

In terms of Britain meanwhile, it is vital that we build up the opposition to AUKUS.

Particularly dangerous is that Boris Johnson seems to be hawking back to the days of Empire, turning back from the decision originally implemented under Harold Wilson’s Government to pull British troops from “east of Suez,” in recognition of the fading role of the empire. It’s astonishing that nearly 50 years later Boris Johnson is turning the clock back for reasons that can only be political.

In contrast to the Tory Government’s approach, the whole labour movement and all progressives must make the case clearly that real security will come from international co-operation to tackle the global crises of our time.

In particular, the massive resources being put into the new nuclear arms race could be put to use to tackle climate change, where the UK, US and Australia are three of the Governments that most need to put far more serious levels of resources into green stimulus at home and helping green development internationally.

Whether it be the deepening climate catastrophe, the Coronavirus pandemic which is still raging across the globe, the refugee crises across the world, or the horrendous levels of inequality and poverty that scar humanity, these common challenges can only be met by international co-operation and constructive engagement. Investing in clean water, sanitation, education and healthcare should be our priorities for a safer world.

Whatever the rhetoric of the new cold war warriors, this is the approach that can bring peace, justice and human rights to 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 Labour Outlook

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 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.

In addition to older Americans, boosters will be made available to people 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe illness from COVID, and also those “whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure” to the virus puts them at high risk of serious complications from the disease caused by the virus, the agency said.

“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as healthcare workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner said in a statement.

The FDA, in approving the emergency authorization, interpreted the advisory panel’s recommendations issued Friday more broadly to cover a larger swath of people.

During meeting of FDA advisory panel to recommend whether to approve 3rd dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, physicians pointed to data that confirms risks of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine don’t outweigh benefits.

SIGN UP #TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66EdwTnDhttps://t.co/rV3ivOcHXn

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) September 20, 2021

On Sept. 17, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) unanimously recommended EUA for a booster dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for people 65 and older and those with compromised immune systems, to be administered six months after they get the first two doses.

However, the committee voted 16 to 2 against recommending boosters for the general population citing a lack of long-term data. The committee said the risks did not outweigh the benefits for those people.

“The FDA considered the committee’s input and conducted its own thorough review of the submitted data to reach today’s decision,” Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Pfizer had asked for FDA approval to give its vaccine to everyone 16 and older six months after they are fully immunized with two shots, CNN reported. The company said it had enough evidence that immunity starts to wane after six months, and that giving a booster restores the immunity safely.

As The Defender reported Sept.16, Pfizer didn’t test its booster at all in people who are actually at risk. The company conducted only a single phase 1 study that covered 12 people over age 65.

The company also combined its phase 2/3 booster trial and included no one over 55. According to data Pfizer submitted to the FDA, the drugmaker tested its booster in only 306 people — one of whom had a heart attack.

Pfizer compared people who received the vaccine with those who received the placebo but later also got the vaccine — because Pfizer unblinded the trial last year by giving placebo subjects the vaccine.

Critics weigh in: boosters ‘unjustified and unethical’

In an email to The Defender, Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, said Pfizer asked the FDA to fully license a third booster dose of its COVID mRNA vaccine for everyone 16 and up based on “unconvincing data.”

Nass said:

“Pfizer used a tiny subset of subjects — only 306 subjects — among whom more than a third dropped out over time. None were under 18, and only 12 were over 65. Furthermore, if you believe the incredibly good efficacy numbers claimed by the CDC, the first two doses continue to work very well and no booster is currently needed.

“As a result, the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee voted against approving the third booster dose for the general population. And that was the only question they had been asked to vote on. However, the FDA was unwilling to take that as its final answer.

“So suddenly the FDA created a new question for the committee: Would it approve (i.e., license) boosters for those over 65 and /or immune compromised? In a transparent attempt to give Pfizer a consolation prize, the committee voted ‘Yes.’”

Nass said authorizing the boosters for the groups designated by the FDA opens the doors to mandate the boosters for those people. “This is why issuing a license for COVID vaccines is such a fraught subject,” Nass said.

Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA vaccine technology, also responded to the FDA’s decision. In an email to The Defender, Malone wrote:

“In general, current data that I am aware of supports administration of booster doses to ‘individuals 65 years of age and older and individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19.’ However, I am not familiar with data that clearly demonstrate that ‘individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.’

“This statement and risk group was not included in the VRBPAC recommendations, and appear to represent regulatory overreach on the part of the FDA and the commissioner.

“The appearance is that the FDA is exceeding its mandate to focus on patient safety, efficacy and purity (adulteration) in order to advance, justify and enable additional vaccine booster mandate public policies for these groups based on public contact risks, rather than unsupported enhanced personal risks of COVID-19 complications.

“What the data do show is that these vaccines do not provide robust protection from infection, high level viral replication and infection of others by vaccinated persons. In my opinion, vaccine booster mandates, coupled with coercive threat of punishment by termination of employment for these cohorts, are both unjustified and unethical.”

Will boosters do more harm than good?

During the Sept. 17 VRBPAC meeting, Steve Kirsch, founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, told FDA officials COVID vaccines kill more people than they save.

Kirsch said four experts did analyses using completely different non-U.S. data sources, and all of them came up with approximately the same number of excess vaccine-related deaths — about 411 deaths per million doses.

“That translates into 150,000 people who have died [from COVID vaccines],” he explained.

Kirsch told committee members:

“We were led to believe that vaccines are perfectly safe, but this is simply not true. For example, there were four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6-month trial report. That wasn’t bad luck, the VAERS shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine. In all, 20 people died who got the drug — 14 died who got the placebo.”

After FDA officials dismissed his comments, Kirsch sent a follow-up email, in which he cited a study in Toxicology Reports to back up his assertion that the people in the age group for whom the FDA approved boosters — 65 and older — are at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than from the virus.

Kirsch pointed officials to this excerpt from the study:

“Thus, our extremely conservative [author’s emphasis] estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! …

“In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the most vulnerable age demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the least vulnerable age demographic.”

CDC expected to follow FDA guidance

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met Wednesday to hear data about the safety and effectiveness of a Pfizer booster, and it is expected to make a recommendation when the committee meets today.

The CDC must give its stamp of approval for any booster doses to be officially given. The ACIP can further amend recommendations for how any vaccine booster doses should be given.

The recommendation from the ACIP will almost certainly receive a quick endorsement from CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. The shots are expected to be available as soon as this week at pharmacies and some doctor’s offices.

In a letter sent Thursday and obtained by CNN, the CDC urged local and state health officials to wait to administer boosters until both agencies had signed off.

According to the CDC’s latest data from its Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), between Dec. 14, 2020, and Sept. 17, 2021, a total of 701,561 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines have been reported — including 14,925 deaths and 91,523 serious injuries.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Last Friday an FDA vaccine advisory committee voted 16 to 2 against authorizing a 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 “booster” shot. And yet inexplicably, they later took a second vote among the same committee members to authorize a 3rd Pfizer booster shot for people over the age of 65, which was passed unanimously.

Why?

Beliefs that vaccines actually help prevent disease, and that therefore those “most vulnerable” need them most, seemed to prevail here among the vaccine cultists, even though most people do not even know that Pfizer has never claimed their COVID-19 shots stop transmission of COVID-19. They allegedly only “lessen the effects.”

This religious-like belief which has no basis in anything that can remotely be considered “science,” is seen in its absurdity among their believers when a fully vaccinated individual dies after receiving these shots, and their loved ones exclaim: “Thank goodness they were fully vaccinated! Otherwise they would have suffered much more before they died.” See: Belief in COVID “Vaccines” Now Reaching Religious Fervor: The Shot “Reduces Suffering” Before Death

As a result of this belief system, seniors are always targeted more than the general population to get as many vaccines as possible, and the version of the flu shot people over the age of 65 get is usually four times as strong (toxic) as flu shots for the general population, based on this belief. See this article we published back in 2013: 23 Seniors Died After Receiving Flu Shot Sold by Pharmacies

It is no surprise then that the vast majority of recorded deaths in VAERS following the COVID-19 injections is among people over the age of 65. Here is the breakdown by age according to statistics in the VAERS government database, which was just updated today (9/24/21).

Source.

As one can clearly see, people over the age of 65 die the most following COVID-19 shots.

If we separate the “Unknown” age category, we see that about 77% of all deaths following COVID-19 shots are among people over the age of 65. Applying that same percentage to the “Unknown,” we can conclude that about 4,414 out of the 5,770 deaths were probably also people over the age of 65.

That brings the total amount of deaths in people over the age of 65 following a COVID-19 shot to about 11,770 deaths.

Throughout this week we have published whistleblower testimonies stating that tremendous pressure is put on healthcare workers to NOT report adverse reactions to VAERS, and we also now have Dr. Jessica Rose’s very detailed analysis on the underreporting of adverse reactions in VAERS where she concludes that a safe estimate would be to multiply adverse events in VAERS by a factor of 41X.

That would mean then that a conservative estimate of deaths in people over the age of 65 following a COVID-19 shot for the past 9 months is about 482,570 senior deaths represented by the U.S. VAERS. (While the majority of these are in the U.S., there are also some from outside the U.S.)

Did you think I was exaggerating when I chose to use the word “genocide” for this age group in the headline to this article?

By way of comparison, I searched the government VAERS database for deaths in this age group following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years, since VAERS was started, and it returned a result of 1,311 deaths in people above the age of 65 following ALL non-COVID vaccines for the past 30 years. (Source)

So we have seen almost ten times more deaths in this age group following COVID-19 shots during the past 9 months than the past 30 years following all other vaccines COMBINED.

And for those people in this age group who survived the first two doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 shot, the FDA and the CDC just authorized a third shot to be given to this age group with the highest recorded deaths already following COVID-19 shots.

THIS IS MASS MURDER!!

This is also the largest age group where medical kidnapping happens, as about 1.3 million seniors have court-appointed guardians where their custody is removed from their families, even if someone in their family has power of attorney, and turned over to the State. (Source.)

State appointed guardianship of seniors is a $273 BILLION industry. (Source.)

And the criminal truth to all these tens of thousands of deaths among seniors following COVID-19 shots is that not a single senior needed to die from an experimental “vaccine”!!

There are effective, non-vaccine treatments!

Just as I was writing this article today, a person emailed me a study published in Spain earlier this year, that saw 84 seniors from two different nursing homes all diagnosed with COVID-19 have a complete recovery from simply using antihistamines and an antibiotic.

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

The results:

None of the patients treated progressed to severe disease, required hospital referral, or had adverse effects related to treatment. All residents recovered in a few days after beginning treatment, and were confirmed later as COVID-19 cases by seroconversion by rapid test when available. (Source.)

Euthanizing our seniors through vaccination is mass murder, and these mass murderers allowing this to happen need to be executed over this.

Does Pfizer Now Rule the World?

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.

In the article we published last weekend about the controversy in the FDA regarding authorizing a 3rd Pfizer booster shot, I speculated that there could be two reasons why there was infighting at the FDA regarding these 3rd Pfizer booster shots:

First, this could be a “drug war,” where Pfizer’s competitors are upset that Pfizer is getting so much of the market share on the COVID-19 vaccines, and they are applying pressure through their contacts at the FDA to start discrediting Pfizer and slow down their rapid race to dominate this market.

Or, secondly, people are starting to abandon ship on the Biden Administration as the current COVID-19 vaccine narrative is now falling apart very quickly, as hundreds of thousands of people are now screaming to have their voices heard regarding their negative experiences with the COVID-19 shots, and the FDA and others are trying to cover their butts in the event that there is a regime change and people start getting arrested for crimes against humanity.

I hope for the second scenario, but fear it is probably the first one. (Source.)

I think this question was answered this week, as the CDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) met to discuss the Pfizer booster shots. Here are some comments about this meeting published by Politico:

Experts are worried about confusing the public

Members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee expressed concerns Wednesday about green-lighting boosters from one brand over others with authorized Covid vaccines available to Americans, noting the potential for public perception and logistical issues. The panel is tasked with recommending to the CDC how the FDA’s vaccine policy should be implemented in real-world settings.

Long suggested that the group wait for more information on so-called mix-and-match doses — the ability to vaccinate someone with one brand’s primary series with the option for a different manufacturer’s booster later — before signing off on just the Pfizer booster, asking “whether we’re willing to panic half the recipients of Moderna.”

“I don’t want to jeopardize anyone,” she said of delaying a booster decision. “At the same time, it’ll be very, very difficult to have a little less than half of the population who would be eligible to receive” a booster if people can only get the brand that matches their initial series.

Moderna has asked FDA to authorize its booster shot, and Johnson & Johnson has begun submitting booster data to the agency with an eye to filing an application.

Amanda Cohn of the CDC urged committee members to consider the recommendations they’re making now as “interim policies” that will change as more data surfaces. The National Institutes of Health is conducting a study on mixing vaccine doses, with results expected later this year.

“This is a rapidly moving target,” she said. (Source.)

Like the FDA advisory committee, this CDC panel voted 9-6 not to recommend boosters, but did recommend them for people above the age of 65.

It seems like Moderna and J&J wanted to get in on this lucrative market and restrict Pfizer to only the senior population.

But the FDA, headed by Janet Woodcock, and the CDC, headed by Rochelle Walensky, both went against their respective committee recommendations, and included ALL adults over the age of 18 for the 3rd Pfizer booster shots.

Hours after the panel voted 9-6 not to recommend boosters for those groups, Walensky overruled them.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Walensky said in a statement late Thursday, according to The Associated Press.

“At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health.“

Walensky noted her recommendation aligned with the Food and Drug Administration, which recommended on Wednesday that adults “in an occupational or institutional setting” that increases their risk of getting COVID-19 also be eligible for the shot. (Source.)

Moderna and J&J lost. Pfizer won. Pfizer obviously has a firm control over both the CDC and FDA.

Can anyone stop Pfizer now? They are 100% in control of their laboratory country, Israel, where it has been revealed that no other pharmaceutical company can provide COVID-19 shots to Israel, as the Israeli people are Pfizer’s personal lab rats. See: The Holocaust in Israel Exposed in Leaked Zoom Call with Pfizer Scientist Admitting that Israelis are Laboratory for Pfizer COVID Shot

Here is a video report from whistleblowers who have seen firsthand the mass murder of our seniors via COVID-19 shots. This is on our Rumble channel, and will also be on our Bitchute 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 from HIN

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 HighWire’ host Del Bigtree and son, Ever, conducted a test, using an OSHA-approved Carbon-Dioxide meter, which revealed something about masks which YouTube, Facebook, and other video platforms are trying very hard to censor. What do you think?

*

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 Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

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.

***

 

Who knew that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an environmental agency? 

But taking the environment into account is what Congress requires of the Commission and what the public needs from it.  Passed over 50 years ago, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) recognized the continuing responsibility of the entire federal government “to use all practicable means . . . to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.”  42 U.S.C. 4331(b).  If we are to sustain the one earth we have to live on, all federal agencies must take into account the impact their actions have on the environment.

Yet, earlier this year, the FCC authorized SpaceX to deploy almost 3,000 low-earth orbit satellites as part of the company’s Starlink system – a mega-constellation to provide satellite-based internet services.

Several other companies, including Amazon, are also pursuing similar mega-constellations of satellites to provide internet services around the world.

Never before have humans put so much into space.

With the FCC’s licensing approval, SpaceX alone will launch more satellites in the next 15 years than have been put in space over all of human history.

This licensing is exactly the kind of federal action that Congress intended to be taken only after a thorough assessment of its potential environmental impacts.  As the Supreme Court said when reviewing a proposed ski resort in a national forest, “NEPA ensures that important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast.”

The FCC, however, has chosen to brush aside its environmental review responsibilities.  NEPA requires federal agencies to include “a detailed statement” (an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS) regarding the environmental impact of any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

If the agency is uncertain about whether its action will significantly affect the environment, it can prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is justified.

The FCC has done neither.  Instead, the Commission has categorically excluded all of its actions from NEPA review, identifying only a few limited exceptions in its regulations.  47 C.F.R. 1.1306.  Such widespread, indiscriminate use of categorical exclusions (CEs) belittles NEPA’s mandate.

Environmental harm from the proposed satellite mega-constellations is not mere speculation.  The increase in commercial satellites has already created significant light pollution.  Designed with a short useful life, the Starlink satellites will add significant debris and chemicals to the atmosphere.  In particular, combustion of satellites upon re-entry produces significant quantities of alumina.  Alumina can deplete the ozone layer we have worked so hard internationally to protect.  It can also increase global warming, whose catastrophic consequences we seem to be experiencing almost every day.  As two scientists recently warned in their peer-reviewed article, Starlink’s deployment “risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere.”

NEPA doesn’t prohibit the FCC’s authorization of commercial wireless communication services from space, but it does require that the FCC analyze the environmental impacts of doing so before the Commission authorizes the launch.  The FCC has consistently refused to do so.

The FCC’s blind approach to satellite launch approval is yet the latest example of the Commission’s disregard for its environmental responsibilities.  In 2018, the FCC changed its rules to eliminate the application of NEPA (as well as the National Historic Preservation Act) to its authorization of small-cell networks increasingly relied upon to provide 5G services across the country.  NRDC, together with 16 Indian Nations, sued the FCC.  A federal court found the FCC’s action unlawful.

More recently, the FCC terminated its inquiry into the adequacy of its health standards for radio-frequency radiation without changing any of the limits – even though these limits are over 20 years old.  Again, the courts found the FCC’s action unlawful.

The public deserves better from its servants at the FCC.

We face a pivotal moment as commercial communication moves into space at a scale never seen before.  Congress anticipated such moments when it passed NEPA. 

By working with experts both inside and outside the government, the FCC can collect the information it needs to assess the environmental impacts of its actions before it takes them.  Launching before looking serves no one.

*

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.

Sharon Buccino is Senior Director, Land Division, Nature Program

Featured image is from DMV

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

.

.

 

“It was quite impressive to note how thoroughly the judges had read our brief in this complicated case. They asked pointed questions about what we have documented in our case to be the failure of the FCC to produce a record of reasoned decision making.

For example the judges zeroed in on the fact that there is a US inter-agency radio frequency working group with which there is no record of consultation on the record. Further they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that it’s own technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. 

The justices questioned how the agency could ignore the undeniable fact that the types of devices, wireless uses and users of wireless devices are radically different today than they were when the standards were first set,”  stated Devra Davis PhD MPH president of Environmental Health Trust.

Listen to oral arguments in the case in this video.

Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the scientific think tank headed by award-winning scientist Devra Davis PhD, MPH is the lead petitioner in a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

After consolidation of the cases by the Courts, the historic case is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense, Consumers for Safer Phones and numerous other petitioners including Elizabeth Barris, Theodora Scarato MSW, Michelle Hertz, Petra Broken, Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran and Paul Stanley M.Ed.

EHT et al. v. the FCC seeks to have the Court order the FCC to remand, vacate and update its 25-year-old exposure guidelines for radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, 5G and other wireless communication devices.

Watch EHT’s Press Conference:

 

Oral arguments with a three judge panel was January 25, 2021 at 9:30 EST.  

The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that presides over the case includes the Honorable Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.

“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.” 

Links to the Scientific Evidence, Court Cases, Personal Testimony Presented in the Case

Briefs 

• Full Opening Brief of Petitioners, August 14, 2020
• FCC Reply Brief to Petitioners, September 22, 2020
• Petitioner’s Reply to the FCC  and Addendum to Petitioners Reply to the FCC, October 19, 2020
• Link to all documents in case such as studies and court cases referenced 
• Court Listener Link that has all filed documents. 

Amicus Briefs 

• Amicus of NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council 
• Amicus of Attorney Joe Sandri including declaration of Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
• Amicus of Catherine Kleiber
• Amicus of the Building Biology Institute 

Click on the Volumes Below to See the Links to the Massive Evidence Filed in EHT et al v. FCC Ignored by the FCC

Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence – 447 exhibits in 27 Volumes-  in support of their  claims. Environmental Health Trust researchers filed 60 of the 447 exhibits.

• Download  Volume 1: Volume 1 Includes FCC Resolution of Notice of Inquiry Order and Notice of Inquiry
• Download  Volume 2: Includes FCC; Comments & reply of the CTIA The Wireless Association & Mobile Manufacturers Forum ET Docket No. 13-84
• Download  Volume 3: Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 2)
• Download  Volume 4: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 3)
• Download  Volume 5: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 4) Research Compilation; Abstracts of Over 600 Studies Published BetweenAugust 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 1)
• Download  Volume 6: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 600 Studies Published Between August 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 2) Research Compilation; Abstracts of 15 New Studies, Dr. Joel Moskowitz Ph.D., 2016, Research Compilation; Studies and Documents; City of Pinole, CA
• Download Volume 7: Includes US Exposures Limits – A History of Their Creation, Comments and Explanations; Eng. Lloyd Morgan, Biosystem & Ecosystem; Birds, Bees and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’: Effects of Mobile Radio and Wireless Communication.Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., 2007, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 1)
• Download  Volume 8: Includes BioInitiative Comments, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 2), NTP; Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environmental Research. Dr. Ron Melnick; 2019 andmore…
• Download  Volume 9: Includes BioInitiative-Modulation; Section 15:Evidence for Disruption by Modulation Role of Physical and Biological Variables in Bioeffects of Non-Thermal Microwaves for Reproducibility, Cancer Risk and Safety Standards, (2012 Supplement), Bioinitiative Working Group; Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF); 2014, Organizations; Environmental Working Group Reply Comments and more…
• Download Volume 10: BioInitiative-Mechanisms of Harm; Percent Comparison Showing Effect vs No Effect, DNA (Comet Assay), 2017 and Free Radical (Oxidative Stress), 2019, Bio Initiative Working Group; Epidemiological Studies, RF fields epidemiology, Comments by Drs. Lennart Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist PhD. and Michael Carlberg, MSc. Section 3.5.1.1 Epidemiological Studies (Exhibit B); 2014, BioInitiative Author; Statement of Prof. Martin Blank PhD., PhD.; 2016, and more…
• Download  Volume 11: Dr. Paul Dart MD. (Petitioner) Comments, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, Problems and Solutions, Prof. Andrew Goldsworthy; 2012, Dr. Richard Meltzer Comments, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure: A Cautionary Tale, Dr. Donald R. Maisch Ph.D. Comments, Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances; Dr. Ron M. Powell, PhD.; 2013 and more…
• Download   Volume 12: Organizations –  Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Neurological and behavior effects οf Non-Ionizing Radiation emitted from mobile devices on children: Steps to be taken ASAP for the protection of children and future generations. Presentation Slides; 2016, Organizations; Austrian Medical Association, Environmental Medicine Evaluation of Electromagnetic Fields; Dr. Jerd Oberfeld MD.; 2007, Organizations; The American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter to the FCC; 2013 and more…
• Download  Volume 13: Organizations; Appeal to the FCC Signed by 26,000 People and Organized by the Environmental Working Group, 2013 (Tab 68 Part 2), Organizations; Freiburger Appeal –Doctors Appeal; 2002, Organizations; Benevento Resolution, The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), 2006, Organizations; The Porto Alegre Resolution; 2009 and more…
• Download Volume 14:  Mechanisms of Harm; Meta-Analysis, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med (Yakymenko et al).; 2016, Mechanisms of Harm; Blood Brain Barrier; Increased Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days after Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Pathophysiology (Nittby, Salford et al); 2009, Mechanisms of Harm; DNA Damage; Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures; Dr. Paul Dart MD.; 2013 and more…
• Download   Volume 15: Prenatal & Children; Doctors and Scientists Letters on Wi-Fi in Schools, Dr. Devra Davis PhD., President of Environmental Health Trust (Petitioner) Comments, Children; Letter to Montgomery County Schools, Prof. Martha Herbert MD., PhD.; 2015, Neurological – Children; A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environ Health Perspect. (Foerster et al); 2018, Prenatal & Children; Cell phone use and behavioral problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. (Divan et al); 2012 and more…
• Download  Volume 16: Prenatal & Children; “Cell Phones & WiFi – Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?”; 2013, Prenatal & Children; Safe Schools 2012, Medical and Scientific Experts Call for Safe Technologies in Schools,Prenatal & Children – Stem Cells; Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives (Markova, Belyaev et al); 2010, Radiation Sickness – Children; Angela Tsiang Comments and more…
• Download  Volume 17: 5G; FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ‘The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World’; 2016, 5G; Letter to House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; Tsiang; 2016, 5G; Ask Congress to Vote No, 2016, 5G; 5G Spectrum Frontiers -The Next Great Unknown Experiment On Our Children, Compilation of Letters to Congress; 2016, 5G;What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells and more…
• Download  Volume 18: Cell Phones; Research Abstracts of Over 700 Studies Showing Health Effects from Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation; Prof. Henri Lai ,(Tab 142 Part 2), Cancer – Brain Tumors; Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. (Hardell and Caarlsberg); 2013 , Cancer-Brain Tumors; Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk: early warnings, early actions? (Gee, Hardell Carlsberg) (Chapter 21 of Report: “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution”); 2013, Jullian Gehman Esq. Comments and more…
• Download  Volume 19: Dr. Joel Moskowitz PhD. Reply Comments, Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S., Cancer – Children; Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health; Environmental Working Group; 2009, Cell Phones – Plants; Review: Weak Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From Mobile Phone Radiation on Plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Malka N. Halgamuge); 2016, Testing; Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access. Prof. Om P. Gandhi PhD.; 2019, Testing – Children; Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research. (C. Fernandez et al); 2018 and more…
• Download Volume 20: Industry Influence; World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – a Hard Nut to Crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Prof. Lennart Hardell MD. PhD.; 2017, Industry Influence; Business Bias As Usual: The Case Of Electromagnetic Pollution. Prof. Levis, Prof. Gennaro, Prof. Garbisa, Industry Influence; Prof. Martha Herbert MD PhD., Harvard Pediatric Neurologist Letter to Los Angeles Unified School District; 2013, Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 1) and more.
• Download Volume 21: Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 2), Industry Influence; Illusion and Escape: The Cell Phone Disease Quagmire. Dr. George L. Carlo PhD., JD.; 2008, Industry Influence; Quote of Prof. Henry Lai PhD from NY Times Article about Percent of Negative, Studies Funded By Industry; 2013, Industry Influence; Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health. Christopher Ketcham, GQ; 2010 and more…
• Download  Volume 22: US Agencies; US Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency, Radiation; 1971 (Tab 185 Part 2), US Agencies; US Department of Labor Comment, Radiation Sickness; Exemption for Fire stations, California Assembly Bill No. 57 (2015), codified at Cal. Gov. Code 65964.1, Radiation Sickness – Firefighters; Susan Foster Comments, Radiation Sickness; Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Dr. Erica MalleryBlythe; 2014 and more…
• Download  Volume 23: Radiation Sickness; Brent Dalton Comments, Radiation Sickness; Elizabeth Barris (Petitioner) Comments, Radiation Sickness; Olemara Comments, Radiation Sickness; Melissa White Comments, Radiation Sickness; Carol Moore Comments, Radiation Sickness; Michele Hertz (Petitioner) Comments and more…
• Download Volume 24: Radiation Sickness; Catherine Morgan Comments, Radiation Sickness; Angelica Rose Comments, Radiation Sickness; Brian J. Bender Comments, Radiation Sickness; Maggie Connolly Comments, Radiation Sickness; Gregory Temmer Comments, Radiation Sickness; Bernice Nathanson Comments, and more…
• Download  Volume 25: Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twelve People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Nine People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twenty People, Collected byStopSmartMeters; 2013, Radiation Sickness: Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Peter Rose; 2010, Radiation Sickness; Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Steven Magee, European Manifesto in support of a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and more…
• Download  Volume 26: Individual Rights; R. Paul and Kathleen Sundmark Reply Comments, Individual Rights & ADA; Cynthia Edwards Comments, Individual Rights; Diana Ostermann, Comments, Individual Rights; BC Human Rights Tribunal approves smart meter class action, Citizens for Safe Technology, and more...
• Download   Volume 27: Testing – Children; Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Gandhi et al); 2011, BioInitiative Reply Comments, Environmental Health Trust INTERNATIONAL POLICY BRIEFING: Cautionary Policy on Radiofrequency Radiation Actions by Governments, Health Authorities and Schools Worldwide

Environmental Health Trust et al. v. the FCC

Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the scientific think tank headed by Devra Davis PhD, MPH, filed the principal brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Wednesday in a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The appeal is aimed at getting the FCC to reconsider, revise, and update its 24-year old exposure limits for radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from cellphones, cell towers, Wi-FI networks, smart meters, and other wireless communication devices and facilities. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense and numerous individual petitioners.

The FCC Violated the Law

The Petitioners contend the FCC ignored the extensive evidence submitted to the agency showing that non-thermal levels of pulsed and modulated RFR emitted by wireless technology are harmful to humans, wildlife and the environment, and its order failed to provide a record of a reasoned decision making. Therefore, the Petitioners claim the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and its decision is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. In addition, the Petitioners argue that the FCC violated NEPA because the Agency did not consider the environmental impacts of its decision.  It also violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because it failed to consider the impact of its decision on public health and safety.

The FCC ignored numerous submissions detailing injuries and rapidly growing illnesses such as Radiation Sickness from radiofrequency radiation and ignored calls such as those from the cities of Boston and Philadelphia to address the sickness. Petitioners argued that the inadequate FCC guidelines are used to deny accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disability Act. The Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of scientific evidence and comments ignored by the FCC in support of their  claims.

Background 

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants. Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. 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.

First published in August 2021

***

Herland Report: Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, forefront virus expert in microbiology in Germany, is one of the many doctors, scientists and medical professionals who give dire warnings about the current untested vaccines that are being administered to billions in the world. 

Dr. Bhakdi is one of the most cited research scientists in German history, former professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, with expertise in vaccinations.

In a new interview, he is very clear on his expert view of the untested vaccinations that are being pushed world wide without proper trials: “It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this ‘vaccination.”

“Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use at present violates the Nuremberg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before tribunal.”

“Especially the vaccination of children is something that is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror … We are horribly worried that there’s going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now. And this is potentially one of the greatest crimes, simply one of the greatest crimes imaginable.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, interviews Bhakdi, and he explains: “Bhakdi has worked on vaccine development, and says he’s “certainly pro-vax with regards to the vaccinations that work and that are meaningful.” Much of his research focused on what’s called the complement system. When activated, the complement system ends up working in such a way that it destroys rather than aids your cells.

Interestingly enough, SARS-CoV-2 uses this very system to its advantage, turning your immune system toward a path of self-destruction. The same self-destructive path also appears to be activated by the COVID shots, which is part of why Bhakdi believes they are the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.” (The article continues below.)

Also read the 2020 Herland Report article about the alarming interview with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, which sends a chillingly apocalyptic message: The Western government shut downs is a completely wrong and extremely dangerous response to the Covid-19 virus. Self-isolating the whole population is

“grotesque, absurd and very dangerous. All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide caused by fear.”

How Effective Are the COVID Shots?

Dr. Joseph Mercola’s analysis states: While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation.

In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.¹

Image on the right is from National File

In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”² Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:

• Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
• Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%

In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,³ Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:

What Kind of Protection Do the COVID Shots Provide?

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Aside from providing insignificant protection in terms of your absolute risk reduction, it’s important to realize that they do not provide immunity. All they can do is reduce the severity of the symptoms of infection. According to Bhakdi, they fail even at this:

“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials],” he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don’t understand that they’re being fooled and have been fooled all along. Let’s take the one of these Pfizer trials: 20,000 healthy people were vaccinated and another 20,000 people were not vaccinated.

And then they observed, over a period of 12 weeks or so, how many cases they found in the vaccinated group and how many cases they found the non-vaccinated. What they found was that less than 1% of the vaccinated group got COVID-19 and less than 1% in the non-vaccinated group also got COVID-19.

The difference was 0.8 to 0.1%, which is nothing, considering the fact that they were not even looking at severe cases. They were looking at people with a positive PCR test — which as we all now know is worthless — plus one symptom, which could be cough or fever.

That is not a severe case of COVID-19. Any vaccination that is going to get authorized must be shown to protect against severe illness and death, and this has definitely not been shown. So, forget authorization. It can’t be authorized, not by any normal means.

Now [the COVID injections do not have] full authorization, it’s an emergency authorization, which again is absolute bullshit, since we know the infection fatality rate of this disease or virus is not greater than that of seasonal flu. John Ioannidis has published these numbers, which have never been contested by anyone in the world and cannot be contested.

If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced.

And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness, as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are very good means and medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80%, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever.

This means the FDA should be able to be forced to retract this emergency use authorization — unless they are in league with whoever wants to do this.”

I neglected to follow-up on his comment about 40,000 people being equally divided between the injection and no injection groups in the COVID injection trials. A few months ago, they actually abandoned the non-injection arm of the trial, so no there is no control group anymore.

The justification was that the injection was too important to deny it to the control group. It’s just another sneaky way to skirt around reporting all the adverse effects occurring in the injection group.

That said, it’s worth repeating that the FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots.

Evidence of Increased Infection Risk After Injection

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Presently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims some 95% of SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting in hospitalization are occurring among the unvaccinated.

This too is a statistical fiction, as they’re using data from January through June 2021, when most of the American public were unvaccinated.

Looking at more recent data, we’re finding that the majority of severe cases and hospitalizations are actually occurring among those that received the COVID jab. Unfortunately, as noted by Bhakdi:

“It’s all manipulated. And, if someone wants to manipulate something and are in a position to then propagate it, you have no chance of analyzing it and telling people because we have no voice in this affair. When we stand up and tell people this, they just turn around and say that’s not the truth.”

Disturbingly, we’re now starting to see the first indications of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which many scientists were concerned about from the very beginning. India, for example, where 10% of the population has been “vaccinated,” is now seeing very severe cases of COVID-19. Bhakdi says:

“What we’re witnessing in India and probably also in Israel is the immune dependent enhancement of disease … It’s bound to happen. So, the people who are getting vaccinated now have to be fearful of the next wave of genuine infections, whether it’s [SARS-CoV-2 variants] or any other coronaviruses, because they’re all related and they will all be subject to immune dependent enhancement, obviously.”

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) refers to a condition where the vaccination results in the complete opposite of what you’re looking for. Rather than protect against the infection, the vaccine augments and worsens the infection.

ADE can occur through more than one mechanism, and Bhakdi is of the opinion that the enhancement is primarily due to over-reactive killer lymphocytes and secondary complement activation, both of which cause severe damage.

Antibodies Versus Lymphocytes

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Bhakdi explains:

“There are two major arms of defense against viral infection. One is the antibodies that, if they are present, may prevent the virus from entering your cells. These are so-called neutralizing antibodies, which the vaccination is supposed to [produce].

But the antibodies are not at the place that they are needed, which is on the surface of the airway epithelium. They are in the blood, but not at the surface of the epithelium where the virus arrives. The second arm of immune defense then comes into play, and these are the lymphocytes.

There are different types of lymphocytes and I will simplify matters by saying the important lymphocytes are the so-called killer lymphocytes that sense whenever a virus product is being produced in the cell. They will then destroy the cells that harbor the virus and thus the factory is closed and you get well again.

That is the mechanism for how we can survive viral infections of the lung, and this happens all the time. So, the lymphocytes, in contrast to the antibodies, recognize many, many, many parts of the proteins. So, if a virus changes a little bit, it doesn’t matter, because the waste products that are recognized by the killer lymphocytes remain very similar.

That is why all of us, and this is now known, all of us have memory lymphocytes in our lymph nodes and lymphoid organs that are trained to recognize these coronaviruses. And whether or not a mutant is there, it doesn’t really matter, because they will recognize a mutant or variant.”

According to Bhakdi, coronaviruses can only undergo point mutations, meaning only one nucleotide at a time can be changed. The influenza virus, meanwhile, can undergo more radical mutations. For example, a flu virus can completely change its spike protein by swapping spike proteins with another virus that is simultaneously present.

This sort of shift is not possible with coronaviruses. Therefore, you will never have leaps in antigenic changes either for antibodies or for T-cell killer lymphocytes. That’s why the background immunity that evolves during the lifetime of a human being is very broad and solid.

Natural Immunity Is Far Superior to Vaccine-Induced Immunity

One of the most egregious nullifications of medical scientific truth is the claim that COVID “vaccination” confers superior protection compared than the natural immunity you get after you’ve been exposed to the virus and recover. The reality is that natural immunity is infinitely more superior to the vaccine-induced protection you get from these shots, which is both narrow and temporary.

The COVID shot produces antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the spike protein, whereas natural immunity produces antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells. As noted by Bhakdi:

“The very fact that the World Health Organization has changed the definition of herd immunity … is such a scandal. I’m at a loss of words to describe how ridiculous I find this all, that this is being accepted by our colleagues. How can the physicians and scientists of the world bear to listen to all this nonsense?”

How the COVID Shot Causes Damage

As explained by Bhakdi, when you get a COVID shot, genetic instructions are being injected into your deltoid muscle. Muscle drains into your lymph nodes, which in turn can enter your bloodstream. There may also be direct translocation from the muscle into smaller blood vessels.

Animal data submitted by Pfizer to Japanese authorities show the mRNA appeared within the blood within one or two hours of injection. The rapidity of it suggests the nano particles are translocated from the muscle directly into the blood, bypassing the lymph nodes.

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat: Also check out these topics at CNN or FOX News. Other sources may be New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post or from the British angle, BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph or Financial Times.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.

*

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 THR

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).

Incisive report first published on April 10, 2021

***

In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.

The list of side effects and adverse reactions to Corona vaccinations is getting longer. A report by the UK’s Medicines Regulatory Agency (MHRA, a body that licenses and oversees medicines in the UK, similar to the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany) now adds blindness and miscarriages to already known reactions to vaccines, such as pain, facial paralysis and blood disorders. The report was updated on February 11 to include reports of suspected adverse reactions from the start of the vaccination campaign on December 9 through the end of January.

Officials say that “more than 110,000 people in the UK have died within 28 days of a positive coronal test.” By comparison, about four million people tested positive, while overseas colonies (including Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda) contributed a few thousand cases. This results in a mortality rate of about 2.5 percent, which is roughly equivalent to the mortality rate of a regular flu.

More side effects at AstraZeneca Vaxzevria

As with VAERS in the U.S., Britons can report suspected adverse reactions and adverse events to vaccines in what is known as the “yellow card scheme” and give a drug a “yellow card.” According to the government report, by the end of January, 9,262,367 people had received one vaccination and 494,206 people had already received two. During the same period, a total of 32,139 yellow cards were collected, with more than 100,000 individual responses. The first notifications date back to December 9, the first day of vaccinations.

About two-thirds of the notifications and nearly 60,000 individual responses in the yellow card scheme relate to Pfizer/BioNTech‘s vaccine. With the exception of 72 cases in which the manufacturer was not specified, the rest fall to AstraZeneca. Although the Moderna vaccine has also been licensed in the UK since January 8, it is not mentioned in the government report.

The distribution of reports across vaccines roughly reflects the vaccines administered. However, it is notable that a report on AstraZeneca contains an average of four separate responses, while for Pfizer/BioNTech there are “only” about 2.5 responses on each yellow card. As “dailyexpose.co.uk” calculates, this means that about one in 333 vaccinees reported side effects or adverse reactions. In reality, however, there could be even more cases “as some may not have been reported under the yellow card scheme.”

That AstraZeneca also causes side effects in Germany was also recently experienced by the emergency department in the district of Minden-Lübbecke. After employees took advantage of a short-term vaccination offer from AstraZeneca – the vaccine is not approved for people over 65 – several employees reported sick. “As a result, the emergency services were not optimally staffed,” district spokesman Florian Hemann told the “Westfalen-Blatt” at the time. Neighboring rescue stations and the DRK assisted.

The “yellow card” regulation includes, in addition to the side effects and reactions already known from the vaccine studies of the manufacturers, even more.

Side effects of Corona vaccines

1. Optical Impairment and Blindness

In total, the reports included 1,280 eye conditions. “Optical impairment and blindness (other than color blindness)” occurred in 53 reports on Pfizer/BioNTech [ed. note: see page 8], as well as 26 yellow cards for AstraZeneca [page 6] and one report without naming the vaccine [page 4]. In thirteen cases (5 Pfizer, 8 AstraZeneca) the report speaks of (complete) blindness after vaccination.

2. Cerebrovascular accidents (stroke)

In 43 cases (Pfizer/BioNTech 32 [page 31], AstraZeneca 11 [page 24]), affected individuals (or their next of kin) have reported cerebrovascular accidents following vaccination by Pfizer. The sudden death of brain cells from lack of oxygen due to an interruption in blood supply caused by a blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain is also known as a stroke. In seven cases – 3 after vaccination by Pfizer/BioNTech, 4 after vaccination by AstraZeneca – this ended fatally.

3. Abortion and miscarriage

Because of insufficient data, neither Pfizer/BioNTech nor AstraZeneca and Moderna approved their vaccines for pregnant women. What effects mRNA vaccination has on fertility or on nursing mothers is also unknown, they said. For its part, the British government announced before the vaccination campaign began that “pregnancy should be excluded in women of childbearing age before vaccination [and] pregnancy should be avoided for at least two months after the second dose.”

Yet the yellow card regulation lists eight [page 36] suspected pregnancy-related cases for Pfizer/BioNTech, and nine [page 28] for AstraZeneca. About half of these involve “spontaneous abortions” or miscarriages. In two cases, premature deliveries or premature rupture of the amniotic sac occurred after vaccination with AstraZeneca.

4. Facial paralysis

There have also been 107 facial nerve disorders reported after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccinations, including paralysis, paresis and spasm. Following vaccinations by AstraZeneca, 17 reports have been received so far. Paralysis in other parts of the body occurred in at least 21 cases (Pfizer 15, AstraZeneca 5, unattributed 1). In most cases, the paralysis symptoms had disappeared after a few days.

5. Deceased

Deaths have also been reported in the UK in the time sequence of vaccinations. The reports included a total of 236 cases with fatalities. Of these, 141 are explicitly listed as “deaths”; all other cases mention another fatal side effect. 76 cases relate to Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine [p. 13], 64 cases to AstraZeneca [p. 10]. One case is not attributed to the vaccine [p. 6].

Particularly notable among the deaths are 15 cases of “sudden death” (nine at Pfizer/BioNTech, six at AstraZeneca), who according to “dailyexpose” “dropped dead immediately after vaccination.”

Interim assessment by the UK government agency

In light of these figures, the MHRA states, “A large proportion of those vaccinated to date as part of the vaccination campaign are very elderly and many of them will also have pre-existing conditions.” The agency therefore concludes that both vaccines raise “no other new safety concerns.” All vaccines and drugs have “certain side effects,” but in the case of the Corona vaccines, these are “consistent with expectations from clinical trials.” It goes on to say:

Following a very extensive exposure of the UK population, no new safety concerns have emerged from the reports received to date, and for the cases of other diseases reported in a temporal association with vaccination, the available evidence does not currently indicate that the vaccine caused the event.”

In contrast, the definition of a “coronadode” which means that someone in the UK “definitely died from COVID-19” applies for up to 28 days after a positive test result. That period is about 10 to 14 days longer than it takes for someone who has tested positive to be officially counted as recovered.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

Ever since WHO mandated worldwide vaxx-certificates – a move directed and funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, not by WHO’s member states – the rope is tightening around the necks of those who decide not to go for the experimental not approved gene-therapy jab: They are not allowed in restaurants, or attending any indoor activity, be it sports or cultural events – not even the zoo.

All 193 UN member countries are dancing to the same tune, the tune of a deep dark ultra-wealthy state. How strange! Is anybody still believing that the covid circus is about health protection?

Bill Gates and WHO’s director general Tedros Adhanom (image right)

Yes, there are many, many people who still believing that it is right to segregate the people into vaxxed and non-vaxxed, even though the very WHO says officially the – what they call – vaccines – do not protect against covid infections. Among the most recent proof is Israel, where most of the recent covid deaths, were vaccinated people. This also applies to a large extent to the rest of the western world.

It doesn’t matter how stark the evidence is, many people still believe their governments, and worse, they obey their instructions.

Maybe the governments, corrupted as they are, are lying, when they say that a majority of people has already been vaccinated. If you look closely, the entire narrative about covid is and has been for the last 18 months – and longer – one Big Lie.

And yet, people who have been and are suffering from the “health impacts” of the invisible covid “virus” – obliterated economy, joblessness, misery, poverty, homelessness, famine – and in many cases death by suicide – still believe in the authorities. They cannot but admire their dictatorial governments, who punish and torture their populations in lockstep around the world. Remember the first scenario of the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report that laid the groundwork for The Great Reset?

It’s called the Lockstep Scenario. It might also be called Stockholm Syndrome. You love your torturer and killer. If there has ever been a pandemic called Stockholm Syndrome, it is NOW. See this also.

The Defender of 15 September 2021, sponsored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pointedly reports,

“With new mandates being rolled out almost daily, every aspect of your life, from employment to travel to entertainment to education to access to healthcare — even to being able to obtain a bank loan — may soon be tied to your vaccine status.” – Kennedy is absolutely right.

His report continues:

“And if public health officials get their way, no child in this country will be able to attend school without multiple injections of an experimental vaccine — for a virus that poses little or no threat to them.”

You may add, that since children as young as 10 years, in many cases even down to 5 years, are the latest victims of “vaccine” injuries, even death. And those who get away with it, may be infertile for life. There are several “trials” with Gates-sponsored, and WHO-supported “vaccination campaigns”, targeting young girls and women – in Africa, India and Bangladesh – ending up sterilizing the vaccinated. Many died in the process.

But the bulldozer moves on, relentlessly, not stoppable, because there is nobody, no authority out there which dares contradicting the Gates-Rockefeller (and others) eugenist agenda.

After all, on average some at least two thirds of WHO’s budget comes from the private sector, notably from Gates and the pharmaceutical industry. This is unheard of in the rest of the UN system. But then, WHO was created in 1948 by the Rockefeller Foundation – a brilliant idea as such, to have the world’s health in the hands of a UN agency, so it may be manipulated literally in lockstep around the globe, for the purposes of the rich and powerful.

Many of today’s covid vaxxers are eugenists. They have been bought, coerced or threatened into believing what they are doing is good for humanity. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Many medical doctors and scientists have to toe the line, or else.

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” – Luke 23:34

There are some very rich and powerful un-humans at the wheel. We let them. They are tyrants. We love them; hence, we obey them. It is as if we needed them, their direction to – the slaughter house. Yes, the Stockholm Syndrome pandemic – is in full swing.

Obedience

The way this works has been tested more than fifty years ago by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. Professor Saul McLeod, a qualified psychology teacher, in a 2017 updated version describes in detail what he called “The Milgram Shock Experience”.

Professor McLeod describes in SimplyPsychology one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology, carried out by Stanley Milgram, also a psychologist at Yale University:

“Milgram conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on “obedience” – that they were just following orders from their superiors.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).

See this, including a 16-min. video – describing the “testing process” – shocking.

Milgram Experiment from Saul Mcleod on Vimeo.

In another stunning interview, “World Vaccination” – Michael Matt talks about the Kennedy Connection, including an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where Kennedy describes how this machinery of world dominance killed his uncle, President John F. Kennedy in 1963, and five years later (6 June 1968) his dad, Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, his uncle’s younger brother, who was also a Presidential candidate.

Robert Kennedy Jr. describes in this video, starting minute 19 (total video 47 min – 9 September 2021) how President Eisenhower already in early 1960 warned about the powers of the Military Industrial Complex, how it may take over government and forge a world-domineering way forward, if not stopped. What Eisenhower did apparently not foresee at that time is the importance and powerful influence, the hand-in-hand world takeover, of the Wall Street financial elite with the military.

See this powerful video.

We are at crucial cross-roads. The next couple of years will determine how the long-planned UN Agenda 2030 will develop and end up.

The so-called UN Agenda 2030 was designed in a 1992 UN-sponsored World Conference, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992.

The more we know, the better we are able to connect the dots, and the better we are armed for defense and reversal of this infamous agenda.

And the sooner we know what we need to know for the safety and survival of mankind, the sooner those doped by the bought propaganda mainstream media and suffering under the Stockholm Syndrome, may wake up – and unite in solidarity.

Its mending the division between the vaxxed and the non-vaxxed – and fighting the common enemy, the Globalists, the One World Order elite – with a novel and common approach of sovereign nations for an environmentally safe and healthy world development.

We shall Overcome!

*

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)

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.