• Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty?
    By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read
    The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:

    No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO,

    referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to.

    A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:

    The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
    The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
    The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
    Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics.

    The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications.

    The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here.

    The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making

    Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.

    The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18):

    require medical examinations;
    review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
    require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
    place suspect persons under public health observation;
    implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
    implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
    implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
    refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
    refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
    implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
    These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9).
    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12).
    Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13).
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19).
    Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20).
    The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21).
    Everyone has the right to work (Article 23).
    Everyone has the right to education (Article 26).
    Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28).
    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30).
    These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.

    The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on

    Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1),
    Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A).
    States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.

    As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.

    States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42):
    Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.

    Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it.

    Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty.

    All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.”

    It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction.

    If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span.

    Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using.

    The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty

    The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12):

    In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers.

    And Article 20 (1):

    …provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.

    The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b).

    Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary.

    In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens.

    As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18):

    …and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation…

    As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO.

    The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended.

    It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool).

    Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding?

    Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates.

    The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022:

    We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…,

    repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration:

    …an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024,

    and by the Council of the European Union:

    A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.

    The IHR already has standing under international law.

    While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect.

    The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain.

    The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty

    The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies.

    If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.

    The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign.

    The Need for Clarification

    The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

    No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day).

    So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.

    Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
    For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

    Authors

    David Bell
    David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

    View all posts
    Thi Thuy Van Dinh
    Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.

    View all posts
    Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

    https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/
    Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states: No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO, referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to. A rational examination of the texts in question shows that: The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact. The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied. The proposals are intended to be binding under international law. Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics. The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here. The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty. The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18): require medical examinations; review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis; require vaccination or other prophylaxis; place suspect persons under public health observation; implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons; implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons; implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons; refuse entry of suspect and affected persons; refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas. These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9). No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12). Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13). Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19). Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20). The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21). Everyone has the right to work (Article 23). Everyone has the right to education (Article 26). Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28). Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30). These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva. The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1), Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A). States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response. As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements. States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42): Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures. Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it. Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty. All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.” It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction. If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span. Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using. The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12): In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers. And Article 20 (1): …provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source. The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b). Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary. In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens. As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18): …and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation… As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO. The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended. It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool). Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding? Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates. The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022: We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…, repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration: …an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024, and by the Council of the European Union: A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics. The IHR already has standing under international law. While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect. The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain. The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies. If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent. The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign. The Need for Clarification The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs. No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day). So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty? ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    If it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6867 Views
  • Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way”

    Michel Chossudovsky
    [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.]

    Introduction

    WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide.

    There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.

    It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022:

    “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates.

    “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC).

    “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

    How could he know this in advance?

    “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat

    In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data.

    Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”.

    Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense.

    “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.”

    According to Forbes:

    Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″

    300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.”

    A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

    Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic.

    Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux


    Click here to watch the interview.

    “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis

    In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”.

    “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.”

    The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017:

    “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential.

    But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years.

    In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added)

    It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”.

    Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time.

    “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee.

    “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests.

    “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph)

    The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019.

    The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”.

    The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation

    The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201)

    An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation:

    On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions.

    Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.”

    “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme.

    Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added)



    Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X”


    Click here to watch the video.

    Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions

    In a factual nutshell:

    WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

    There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency.

    On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China.

    The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases.

    All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus.

    In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people.

    In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people.

    In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people.

    The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis.

    The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

    There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences.

    The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank.

    All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment.

    The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system.

    According to David Skripac:

    “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”

    Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as:

    “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

    Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen”

    Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”.

    A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023.

    “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.

    Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.”

    She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective.

    “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” …

    “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.”

    (The Guardian, emphasis added)

    The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus

    “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE).

    Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in:

    The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.

    The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board.

    What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024).

    We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.”

    Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that

    “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”.

    Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic.


    https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud

    It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world.

    When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never.

    Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one.

    Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen.

    So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense!

    Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic.

    Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before?

    You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever.

    I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives!

    Best wishes
    Mike

    👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic” “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way” Michel Chossudovsky [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.] Introduction WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide. There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation. It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022: “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates. “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC). “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said. How could he know this in advance? “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”. Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.” According to Forbes: Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″ 300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.” A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”. Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic. Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux Click here to watch the interview. “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”. “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017: “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years. In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added) It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time. “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee. “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests. “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph) The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019. The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X” A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”. The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X” “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201) An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions. Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.” “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme. Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added) Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X” Click here to watch the video. Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions In a factual nutshell: WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases. All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people. In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people. The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis. The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank. All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system. According to David Skripac: “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as: “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).” Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen” Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”. A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023. “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen. Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.” She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective. “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” … “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.” (The Guardian, emphasis added) The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE). Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in: The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons. The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board. What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024). We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.” Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic. https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world. When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never. Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one. Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen. So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense! Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic. Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before? You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever. I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives! Best wishes Mike 👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    A “vaccine” for a non-existent hypothetical “Disease X” is slated to to be developed at one of UK Ministry of Defense's most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 22136 Views
  • The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges
    Joe Biden relies on advisors who view the world through the prism of the West’s civilizing mission to the “lesser breeds” of the earth to formulate his policies towards Israel and the Middle East.


    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

    ***

    Joe Biden’s inner circle of strategists for the Middle East — Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk — have little understanding of the Muslim world and a deep animus towards Islamic resistance movements. They see Europe, the United States and Israel as involved in a clash of civilizations between the enlightened West and a barbaric Middle East. They believe that violence can bend Palestinians and other Arabs to their will. They champion the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. and Israeli military as the key to regional stability — an illusion that fuels the flames of regional war and perpetuates the genocide in Gaza.

    In short, these four men are grossly incompetent. They join the club of other clueless leaders, such as those who waltzed into the suicidal slaughter of World War One, waded into the quagmire of Vietnam or who orchestrated the series of recent military debacles in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They are endowed with the presumptive power vested in the Executive Branch to bypass Congress, to provide weapons to Israel and carry out military strikes in Yemen and Iraq. This inner circle of true believers dismiss the more nuanced and informed counsels in the State Department and the intelligence communities, who view the refusal of the Biden administration to pressure Israel to halt the ongoing genocide as ill-advised and dangerous.

    Biden has always been an ardent militarist — he was calling for war with Iraq five years before the U.S. invaded. He built his political career by catering to the distaste of the white middle class for the popular movements, including the anti-war and civil rights movements, that convulsed the country in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. He joined Southern segregationists to oppose bringing Black students into Whites-only schools. He opposed federal funding for abortions and supported a constitutional amendment allowing states to restrict abortions. He attacked President George H. W. Bush in 1989 for being too soft in the “war on drugs.” He was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill and a raft of other draconian laws that more than doubled the U.S. prison population, militarized the police and pushed through drug laws that saw people incarcerated for life without parole. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, the greatest betrayal of the working class since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. He has always been a strident defender of Israel, bragging that he did more fundraisers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than any other Senator.

    “As many of you heard me say before, were there no Israel, America would have to invent one. We’d have to invent one because… you protect our interests like we protect yours,” Biden said in 2015, to an audience that included the Israeli ambassador, at the 67th Annual Israeli Independence Day Celebration in Washington D.C. During the same speech he said, “The truth of the matter is we need you. The world needs you. Imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century if Israel were not sustained, vibrant and free.”

    The year before Biden gave a gushing eulogy for Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister and general who was implicated in massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese and others in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon — as well as Egyptian prisoners of war — going back to the 1950s. He described Sharon as “part of one of the most remarkable founding generations in the history not of this nation, but of any nation.”

    While repudiating Donald Trump and his administration, Biden has not reversed Trump’s abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama, or Trump’s sanctions against Iran. He has embraced Trump’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, including the rehabilitation of Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following the assassination of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2017 in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. He has not intervened to curb Israeli attacks on Palestinians and settlement expansion in the West Bank. He did not reverse Trump’s moving of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, although the embassy includes land Israel illegally colonized after invading the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

    As a seven-term senator of Delaware, Biden received more financial support from pro-Israel donors than any other senator, since 1990. Biden retains this record despite the fact that his senatorial career ended in 2009, when he became Obama’s vice president. Biden explains his commitment to Israel as “personal” and “political.”

    He has parroted back Israeli propaganda — including fabrications about beheaded babies and widespread rape of Israeli women by Hamas fighters — and asked Congress to provide $14 billion in additional aid to Israel since the Oct. 7 attack. He has twice bypassed Congress to supply Israel with thousands of bombs and munitions, including at least 100 2,000-pound bombs, used in the scorched earth campaign in Gaza.

    Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 90,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It has destroyed or damaged over 60 percent of the housing. The “safe areas,” to which some 2 million Gazans were instructed to flee in southern Gaza, have been bombed, with thousands of casualties. Palestinians in Gaza now make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the U.N. Every person in Gaza is hungry. A quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water. Famine is imminent. The 335,000 children under the age of five are at high risk of malnutrition. Some 50,000 pregnant women lack healthcare and adequate nutrition.

    And it could all end if the U.S. chose to intervene.

    “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.,” retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate. “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

    Blinken was Biden’s principal foreign policy adviser when Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He, along with Biden, lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. When he was Obama’s deputy national security advisor, he advocated the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He opposed withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria. He worked on the disastrous Biden Plan to partition Iraq along ethnic lines.

    “Within the Obama White House, Blinken played an influential role in the imposition of sanctions against Russia over the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and subsequently led ultimately unsuccessful calls for the U.S. to arm Ukraine,” according to the Atlantic Council, NATO’s unofficial think tank.

    Image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X



    When Blinken landed in Israel following the attacks by Hamas and other resistance groups on Oct. 7, he announced at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

    “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.”

    He attempted, on Israel’s behalf, to lobby Arab leaders to accept the 2.3 million Palestinian refugees Israel intends to ethnically cleanse from Gaza, a request that evoked outrage among Arab leaders.

    Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, and McGurk, are consummate opportunists, Machiavellian bureaucrats who cater to the reigning centers of power, including the Israel lobby.

    Sullivan was the chief architect of Hillary Clinton’s Asia pivot. He backed the corporate and investor rights Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which was sold as helping the U.S. contain China. Trump ultimately killed the trade agreement in the face of mass opposition from the U.S. public. His focus is thwarting a rising China, including through the expansion of the U.S. military.

    While not focused on the Middle East, Sullivan is a foreign policy hawk who has a knee jerk embrace of force to shape the world to U.S. demands. He embraces military Keynesianism, arguing that massive government spending on the weapons industry benefits the domestic economy.

    In a 7,000-word essay for Foreign Affairs magazine published five days before the Oct. 7 attacks, which left some 1,200 Israelis dead, Sullivan exposed his lack of understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East.



    Screenshot from The New York Times

    “Although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges,” he writes in the original version of the essay, “the region is quieter than it has been for decades,” adding that in the face of “serious” frictions, “we have de-escalated crises in Gaza.”

    Sullivan ignores Palestinian aspirations and Washington’s rhetorical backing for a two-state solution in the article, hastily rewritten in the online version after the Oct. 7 attacks. He writes in his original piece:

    At a meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last year, the president set forth his policy for the Middle East in an address to the leaders of members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. His approach returns discipline to US policy. It emphasizes deterring aggression, de-escalating conflicts, and integrating the region through joint infrastructure projects and new partnerships, including between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

    McGurk, the deputy assistant to President Biden and the coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the White House National Security Council, was a chief architect of Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, which accelerated the bloodletting. He worked as a legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. He then became Trump’s anti-ISIS czar.

    He does not speak Arabic — none of the four men does — and came to Iraq with no knowledge of its history, peoples or culture. Nevertheless, he helped draft Iraq’s interim constitution and oversaw the legal transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Interim Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. McGurk was an early backer of Nouri al-Maliki, who was Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014. Al-Maliki built a Shi’ite-controlled sectarian state that deeply alienated Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In 2005, McGurk transferred to the National Security Council (NSC), where he served as director for Iraq, and later as special assistant to the president and senior director for Iraq and Afghanistan. He served on the NSC staff from 2005 to 2009. In 2015, he was appointed as Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. He was retained by Trump until his resignation in Dec. 2018.

    An article in April 2021 titled “Brett McGurk: A Hero of Our Times,” in New Lines Magazine by former BBC foreign correspondent Paul Wood, paints a scathing portrait of McGurk. Wood writes:

    A senior Western diplomat who served in Baghdad told me that McGurk had been an absolute disaster for Iraq. “He is a consummate operator in Washington, but I saw no sign that he was interested in Iraqis or Iraq as a place full of real people. It was simply a bureaucratic and political challenge for him.” One critic who was in Baghdad with McGurk called him Machiavelli reincarnated. “It’s intellect plus ambition plus the utter ruthlessness to rise no matter the cost.”

    [….]

    A U.S. diplomat who was in the embassy when McGurk arrived found his steady advance astonishing. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?”

    Even those who didn’t like McGurk had to admit that he had a formidable intellect — and was a hard worker. He was also a gifted writer, no surprise as he had clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His rise mirrored that of an Iraqi politician named Nouri al-Maliki, one careerist helping the other. That is McGurk’s tragedy — and Iraq’s.

    [….]

    McGurk’s critics say his lack of Arabic meant he missed the vicious, sectarian undertones of what al-Maliki was saying in meetings right from the start. Translators censored or failed to keep up. Like many Americans in Iraq, McGurk was deaf to what was happening around him.

    Al-Maliki was the consequence of two mistakes by the U.S. How much McGurk had to do with them remains in dispute. The first mistake was the “80 Percent Solution” for ruling Iraq. The Sunni Arabs were mounting a bloody insurgency, but they were just 20% of the population. The theory was that you could run Iraq with the Kurds and the Shiites. The second error was to identify the Shiites with hardline, religious parties backed by Iran. Al-Maliki, a member of the religious Da’wa Party, was the beneficiary of this.

    In a piece in HuffPost in May 2022 by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, titled “Biden’s Top Middle East Advisor ‘Torched the House and Showed Up With a Firehose,’” McGurk is described by a colleague, who asked not to be named, as “the most talented bureaucrat they’ve ever seen, with the worst foreign policy judgment they’ve ever seen.”

    McGurk, like others in the Biden administration, is bizarrely focused on what comes after Israel’s genocidal campaign, rather than trying to halt it. McGurk proposed denying humanitarian aid and refusing to implement a pause in the fighting in Gaza until all the Israeli hostages were freed. Biden and his three closest policy advisors have called for the Palestinian Authority — an Israeli puppet regime that is reviled by most Palestinians — to take control of Gaza once Israel finishes leveling it. They have called on Israel — since Oct. 7 — to take steps towards a two-state solution, a plan rejected in an humiliating public rebuke to the the Biden White House by Netanyahu.

    The Biden White House spends more time talking to the Israelis and Saudis, who are being lobbied to normalize relations with Israel and help rebuild Gaza, than the Palestinians, who are at best, an afterthought. It believes the key to ending Palestinian resistance is found in Riyadh, summed up in a top-secret document peddled by McGurk called the “Jerusalem-Jeddah Pact,” the HuffPost reported. It is unable or unwilling to curb Israel’s bloodlust, which included missile strikes in a residential neighborhood in Damascus, Syria, on Saturday that killed five military advisors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and a drone attack in South Lebanon on Sunday, which killed two senior members of Hezbollah. These Israeli provocations will not go unanswered, evidenced by the ballistic missiles and rockets launched on Sunday by militants in western Iraq that targeted U.S. personnel stationed at the al-Assad Airbase.

    The Alice-in-Wonderland idea that once the slaughter in Gaza ends a diplomatic pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the key to regional stability is stupefying. Israel’s genocide, and Washington’s complicity, is shredding U.S. credibility and influence, especially in the Global South and the Muslim world. It ensures another generation of enraged Palestinians — whose families have been obliterated and whose homes have been destroyed — seeking vengeance.

    The policies embraced by the Biden administration not only blithely ignore the realities in the Arab world, but the realities of an extremist Israeli state that, with Congress bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, couldn’t care less what the Biden White House dreams up. Israel has no intention of creating a viable Palestinian state. Its goal is the ethnic cleansing of the 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and the annexation of Gaza by Israel. And when Israel is done with Gaza, it will turn on the West Bank, where Israeli raids now occur on an almost nightly basis and where thousands have been arrested and detained without charge since Oct. 7.

    Those running the show in the Biden White House are chasing after rainbows. The march of folly led by these four blind mice perpetuates the cataclysmic suffering of the Palestinians, stokes a regional war and presages another tragic and self-defeating chapter in the two decades of U.S. military fiascos in the Middle East.

    *

    Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    Featured image: Blood Brothers – by Mr. Fish via Chris Hedges

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/four-horsemen-gaza-apocalypse/5847199
    The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges Joe Biden relies on advisors who view the world through the prism of the West’s civilizing mission to the “lesser breeds” of the earth to formulate his policies towards Israel and the Middle East. All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth” *** Joe Biden’s inner circle of strategists for the Middle East — Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk — have little understanding of the Muslim world and a deep animus towards Islamic resistance movements. They see Europe, the United States and Israel as involved in a clash of civilizations between the enlightened West and a barbaric Middle East. They believe that violence can bend Palestinians and other Arabs to their will. They champion the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. and Israeli military as the key to regional stability — an illusion that fuels the flames of regional war and perpetuates the genocide in Gaza. In short, these four men are grossly incompetent. They join the club of other clueless leaders, such as those who waltzed into the suicidal slaughter of World War One, waded into the quagmire of Vietnam or who orchestrated the series of recent military debacles in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They are endowed with the presumptive power vested in the Executive Branch to bypass Congress, to provide weapons to Israel and carry out military strikes in Yemen and Iraq. This inner circle of true believers dismiss the more nuanced and informed counsels in the State Department and the intelligence communities, who view the refusal of the Biden administration to pressure Israel to halt the ongoing genocide as ill-advised and dangerous. Biden has always been an ardent militarist — he was calling for war with Iraq five years before the U.S. invaded. He built his political career by catering to the distaste of the white middle class for the popular movements, including the anti-war and civil rights movements, that convulsed the country in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. He joined Southern segregationists to oppose bringing Black students into Whites-only schools. He opposed federal funding for abortions and supported a constitutional amendment allowing states to restrict abortions. He attacked President George H. W. Bush in 1989 for being too soft in the “war on drugs.” He was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill and a raft of other draconian laws that more than doubled the U.S. prison population, militarized the police and pushed through drug laws that saw people incarcerated for life without parole. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, the greatest betrayal of the working class since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. He has always been a strident defender of Israel, bragging that he did more fundraisers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than any other Senator. “As many of you heard me say before, were there no Israel, America would have to invent one. We’d have to invent one because… you protect our interests like we protect yours,” Biden said in 2015, to an audience that included the Israeli ambassador, at the 67th Annual Israeli Independence Day Celebration in Washington D.C. During the same speech he said, “The truth of the matter is we need you. The world needs you. Imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century if Israel were not sustained, vibrant and free.” The year before Biden gave a gushing eulogy for Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister and general who was implicated in massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese and others in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon — as well as Egyptian prisoners of war — going back to the 1950s. He described Sharon as “part of one of the most remarkable founding generations in the history not of this nation, but of any nation.” While repudiating Donald Trump and his administration, Biden has not reversed Trump’s abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama, or Trump’s sanctions against Iran. He has embraced Trump’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, including the rehabilitation of Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following the assassination of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2017 in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. He has not intervened to curb Israeli attacks on Palestinians and settlement expansion in the West Bank. He did not reverse Trump’s moving of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, although the embassy includes land Israel illegally colonized after invading the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. As a seven-term senator of Delaware, Biden received more financial support from pro-Israel donors than any other senator, since 1990. Biden retains this record despite the fact that his senatorial career ended in 2009, when he became Obama’s vice president. Biden explains his commitment to Israel as “personal” and “political.” He has parroted back Israeli propaganda — including fabrications about beheaded babies and widespread rape of Israeli women by Hamas fighters — and asked Congress to provide $14 billion in additional aid to Israel since the Oct. 7 attack. He has twice bypassed Congress to supply Israel with thousands of bombs and munitions, including at least 100 2,000-pound bombs, used in the scorched earth campaign in Gaza. Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 90,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It has destroyed or damaged over 60 percent of the housing. The “safe areas,” to which some 2 million Gazans were instructed to flee in southern Gaza, have been bombed, with thousands of casualties. Palestinians in Gaza now make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the U.N. Every person in Gaza is hungry. A quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water. Famine is imminent. The 335,000 children under the age of five are at high risk of malnutrition. Some 50,000 pregnant women lack healthcare and adequate nutrition. And it could all end if the U.S. chose to intervene. “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.,” retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate. “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” Blinken was Biden’s principal foreign policy adviser when Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He, along with Biden, lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. When he was Obama’s deputy national security advisor, he advocated the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He opposed withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria. He worked on the disastrous Biden Plan to partition Iraq along ethnic lines. “Within the Obama White House, Blinken played an influential role in the imposition of sanctions against Russia over the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and subsequently led ultimately unsuccessful calls for the U.S. to arm Ukraine,” according to the Atlantic Council, NATO’s unofficial think tank. Image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X When Blinken landed in Israel following the attacks by Hamas and other resistance groups on Oct. 7, he announced at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.” He attempted, on Israel’s behalf, to lobby Arab leaders to accept the 2.3 million Palestinian refugees Israel intends to ethnically cleanse from Gaza, a request that evoked outrage among Arab leaders. Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, and McGurk, are consummate opportunists, Machiavellian bureaucrats who cater to the reigning centers of power, including the Israel lobby. Sullivan was the chief architect of Hillary Clinton’s Asia pivot. He backed the corporate and investor rights Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which was sold as helping the U.S. contain China. Trump ultimately killed the trade agreement in the face of mass opposition from the U.S. public. His focus is thwarting a rising China, including through the expansion of the U.S. military. While not focused on the Middle East, Sullivan is a foreign policy hawk who has a knee jerk embrace of force to shape the world to U.S. demands. He embraces military Keynesianism, arguing that massive government spending on the weapons industry benefits the domestic economy. In a 7,000-word essay for Foreign Affairs magazine published five days before the Oct. 7 attacks, which left some 1,200 Israelis dead, Sullivan exposed his lack of understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East. Screenshot from The New York Times “Although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges,” he writes in the original version of the essay, “the region is quieter than it has been for decades,” adding that in the face of “serious” frictions, “we have de-escalated crises in Gaza.” Sullivan ignores Palestinian aspirations and Washington’s rhetorical backing for a two-state solution in the article, hastily rewritten in the online version after the Oct. 7 attacks. He writes in his original piece: At a meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last year, the president set forth his policy for the Middle East in an address to the leaders of members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. His approach returns discipline to US policy. It emphasizes deterring aggression, de-escalating conflicts, and integrating the region through joint infrastructure projects and new partnerships, including between Israel and its Arab neighbors. McGurk, the deputy assistant to President Biden and the coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the White House National Security Council, was a chief architect of Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, which accelerated the bloodletting. He worked as a legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. He then became Trump’s anti-ISIS czar. He does not speak Arabic — none of the four men does — and came to Iraq with no knowledge of its history, peoples or culture. Nevertheless, he helped draft Iraq’s interim constitution and oversaw the legal transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Interim Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. McGurk was an early backer of Nouri al-Maliki, who was Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014. Al-Maliki built a Shi’ite-controlled sectarian state that deeply alienated Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In 2005, McGurk transferred to the National Security Council (NSC), where he served as director for Iraq, and later as special assistant to the president and senior director for Iraq and Afghanistan. He served on the NSC staff from 2005 to 2009. In 2015, he was appointed as Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. He was retained by Trump until his resignation in Dec. 2018. An article in April 2021 titled “Brett McGurk: A Hero of Our Times,” in New Lines Magazine by former BBC foreign correspondent Paul Wood, paints a scathing portrait of McGurk. Wood writes: A senior Western diplomat who served in Baghdad told me that McGurk had been an absolute disaster for Iraq. “He is a consummate operator in Washington, but I saw no sign that he was interested in Iraqis or Iraq as a place full of real people. It was simply a bureaucratic and political challenge for him.” One critic who was in Baghdad with McGurk called him Machiavelli reincarnated. “It’s intellect plus ambition plus the utter ruthlessness to rise no matter the cost.” [….] A U.S. diplomat who was in the embassy when McGurk arrived found his steady advance astonishing. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?” Even those who didn’t like McGurk had to admit that he had a formidable intellect — and was a hard worker. He was also a gifted writer, no surprise as he had clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His rise mirrored that of an Iraqi politician named Nouri al-Maliki, one careerist helping the other. That is McGurk’s tragedy — and Iraq’s. [….] McGurk’s critics say his lack of Arabic meant he missed the vicious, sectarian undertones of what al-Maliki was saying in meetings right from the start. Translators censored or failed to keep up. Like many Americans in Iraq, McGurk was deaf to what was happening around him. Al-Maliki was the consequence of two mistakes by the U.S. How much McGurk had to do with them remains in dispute. The first mistake was the “80 Percent Solution” for ruling Iraq. The Sunni Arabs were mounting a bloody insurgency, but they were just 20% of the population. The theory was that you could run Iraq with the Kurds and the Shiites. The second error was to identify the Shiites with hardline, religious parties backed by Iran. Al-Maliki, a member of the religious Da’wa Party, was the beneficiary of this. In a piece in HuffPost in May 2022 by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, titled “Biden’s Top Middle East Advisor ‘Torched the House and Showed Up With a Firehose,’” McGurk is described by a colleague, who asked not to be named, as “the most talented bureaucrat they’ve ever seen, with the worst foreign policy judgment they’ve ever seen.” McGurk, like others in the Biden administration, is bizarrely focused on what comes after Israel’s genocidal campaign, rather than trying to halt it. McGurk proposed denying humanitarian aid and refusing to implement a pause in the fighting in Gaza until all the Israeli hostages were freed. Biden and his three closest policy advisors have called for the Palestinian Authority — an Israeli puppet regime that is reviled by most Palestinians — to take control of Gaza once Israel finishes leveling it. They have called on Israel — since Oct. 7 — to take steps towards a two-state solution, a plan rejected in an humiliating public rebuke to the the Biden White House by Netanyahu. The Biden White House spends more time talking to the Israelis and Saudis, who are being lobbied to normalize relations with Israel and help rebuild Gaza, than the Palestinians, who are at best, an afterthought. It believes the key to ending Palestinian resistance is found in Riyadh, summed up in a top-secret document peddled by McGurk called the “Jerusalem-Jeddah Pact,” the HuffPost reported. It is unable or unwilling to curb Israel’s bloodlust, which included missile strikes in a residential neighborhood in Damascus, Syria, on Saturday that killed five military advisors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and a drone attack in South Lebanon on Sunday, which killed two senior members of Hezbollah. These Israeli provocations will not go unanswered, evidenced by the ballistic missiles and rockets launched on Sunday by militants in western Iraq that targeted U.S. personnel stationed at the al-Assad Airbase. The Alice-in-Wonderland idea that once the slaughter in Gaza ends a diplomatic pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the key to regional stability is stupefying. Israel’s genocide, and Washington’s complicity, is shredding U.S. credibility and influence, especially in the Global South and the Muslim world. It ensures another generation of enraged Palestinians — whose families have been obliterated and whose homes have been destroyed — seeking vengeance. The policies embraced by the Biden administration not only blithely ignore the realities in the Arab world, but the realities of an extremist Israeli state that, with Congress bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, couldn’t care less what the Biden White House dreams up. Israel has no intention of creating a viable Palestinian state. Its goal is the ethnic cleansing of the 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and the annexation of Gaza by Israel. And when Israel is done with Gaza, it will turn on the West Bank, where Israeli raids now occur on an almost nightly basis and where thousands have been arrested and detained without charge since Oct. 7. Those running the show in the Biden White House are chasing after rainbows. The march of folly led by these four blind mice perpetuates the cataclysmic suffering of the Palestinians, stokes a regional war and presages another tragic and self-defeating chapter in the two decades of U.S. military fiascos in the Middle East. * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Featured image: Blood Brothers – by Mr. Fish via Chris Hedges https://www.globalresearch.ca/four-horsemen-gaza-apocalypse/5847199
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Like
    Love
    2
    1 Comments 1 Shares 17329 Views
  • The Corbett Report unveils the BBC, a coincidence theory broadcaster – Must read!
    Rhoda WilsonOctober 15, 2023
    James Corbett’s hit piece about the BBC in the style of the BBC’s own hit pieces featuring Marianna Spring, the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent. As he says – enjoy!

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    The Beeb: Inside the UK’s coincidence theory broadcaster that shares violence and hate

    By James Corbett, The Corbett Report

    Remember ‘Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? I Will!!!’, where I shone the spotlight of shame on Marianna Spring, the BBC’s “specialist disinformation correspondent” who was recently busted for having lied about her own work history on her CV?

    And remember my recent Solutions Watch episode on ‘The Newspaper Revolution’, wherein I picked apart ‘The Light: Inside the UK’s conspiracy theory newspaper that shares violence and hate’, a Spring-penned hit piece on Darren Nesbit of The Light newspaper?

    And remember when, in the course of dissecting Spring’s article, I mused that I should write a parody of her style, demonstrating how mindless and risible that flavour of establishment hatchet job “journalism” really is?

    Well, this week I present to you exactly that: a hit piece about the BBC in the style of the BBC’s own hit pieces! Enjoy!

    (Note: All ridiculous grammatical constructions, pompous journalistic syntax and awkward, clunky turns of phrase have been copied directly from Spring’s propaganda piece. Blame her, not me!)


    Marianna Spring, BBC disinfo specialist, got her start in the business by lying on her CV
    The Corbett Report anti-disinformation special correspondent

    A UK coincidence theory broadcaster sharing calls for censoring their journalistic competition, debanking their domestic opposition and executing their foreign opposition and even innocent civilians has links with the British government and with intelligence agencies involved in coups and assassination attempts around the world, The Corbett Report can reveal.

    The BBC, which is seen by at least 1,000 octogenarians who never learned how to change the channel on their 1960s television set and which boasts more than 100 followers on its social media site BBC Online, grew to be a focal point of the UK coincidence theory movement with its pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown stance during the scamdemic.

    In its pages and on its corresponding streaming platform, the BBC has shared hateful and violent rhetoric towards journalists, medics and Members of Parliament, as well as platforming hereditary psychopaths accused of participating in The Great Reset.

    The broadcaster is funded by a tax on televisions masquerading as a “TV licence” and would NEVER be promoted by volunteers in dozens of towns across the country, where local leaders rely on it to promote their false and misleading claims about vaccines, the financial system and climate change, amid other more mundane articles on local politics, health and wellness.

    Articles and content shared by the BBC have called for the government, doctors, nurses and journalists to be punished for refusing to participate in the globalists’ crimes against humanity.

    Recent articles declare “The haters and conspiracy theorists [are] back on Twitter” (despite being unable to back up that claim) and fret about how poor (read: rich), beleaguered (read: pampered) Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is “grappling with Western war fatigue” (read: average people realising that their government is more concerned with keeping the military-industrial gravy train rolling than with keeping their own government functioning).

    Other posts shared by the BBC on Tumblr (WARNING: do NOT search “bbc” on Tumblr!) have featured hard-hitting news about a 700 year-old vampire skeleton on display in Bulgaria and a deep-dive investigation of a 75-year-old grandma bodybuilder. (And who can forget that classic, award-worthy exemplar of journalism, “Woman wan troway poo-poo, come trap for window“?)

    On Twitter, the broadcaster has also shared and endorsed content from utter psychos and nutjobs, gloating about the death of their rivals and making up fake stories about their political enemies, whilst simultaneously deleting tweets from staffers who admitted that scenes of chemical weapons attacks in Syria were staged for Western media.

    It has also consistently harboured, protected and promoted sexual deviants, including one of the most infamous (royally connected) paedophiles and neocrophiles in modern history.

    Marianna Spring, the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent, defended her broadcaster’s history of promoting and defending paedophiles before telling The Light newspaper that these matters are “above my pay grade.”


    If the BBC published a paper, how many people do you think would be volunteering to buy them in bulk and hand them out to people on the street?
    Spring says she isn’t in charge of the BBC’s newsroom, although acknowledges that everyone in said newsroom thinks exactly alike and believes themselves to be arbiters of truth who can tell the little people when they are guilty of wrongthink. Posts are sometimes published uncredited and sometimes appear under the author’s byline.

    Ms. Spring acknowledges that BBC Media Action does indeed receive funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but stresses that BBC Media Action is totally separate from BBC News and how dare you conflate the two. She has published content endorsing the Gates Foundation’s aim of combatting vaccine “hesitancy” by deceiving others about how safe and effective they are.

    The British government has boasted about its use of the BBC as a proxy for controlling news and information abroad, noting that its interests are “well served” by its collaboration with the broadcaster.

    Referring to concerns about the wider coincidence theory movement more generally, the UK’s chief forensic researcher of mainstream propaganda narratives, Iain Davis, has written on his Substack that “[t]he narratives she spring has presented to her BBC audience are riddled with inconsistencies and factual errors” and that “she has routinely ignored evidence without justification and has offered risible supposed ‘facts’ to support, what is clearly, propaganda”. [<-Yes, dear grammar Nazis, it’s the BBC that puts the period outside of the quotation marks, not me! Check the original!]

    Set up in 1922 as a government mouthpiece, the BBC is distributed in about 30 places across the UK such as Brighton, Thetford, Stroud, Plymouth, Oxford, Bristol, Manchester and Glastonbury. Local coincidence theory groups gather at the corner pub several nights a week to discuss the most recent propaganda blared at them through the tele.

    In the Devon town of Totnes, a demotivated minority have been leaving the BBC on in the background while they do the washing up for years. Its former town Mayor Ben Piper says he first became a key target of the conspiracy realist movement there because of his role enforcing draconian, anti-human lockdown policies, as dictated by his globalist overlords.


    Former mayor of Totnes Ben Piper says everything bad that happens to him (including when he stubbed his toe yesterday) is probably the result of things that weren’t written about him by those independent journalist meanies.
    He fears that every unpleasant incident that happens in his personal life is now a direct result of the free flow of information enabled by independent media platforms and implies that the world will not be safe until every last citizen journalist has been jailed and news can be delivered only via the mockingbird repeaters of the BBC.

    “There was an aggression that bled through the editorial that was not as innocent as it was making out to be,” he says about an unflattering piece about him that appeared in The Light, apparently unaware that his statement is an admission that the article didn’t actually say anything aggressive in the first place and that he can only construe it as incitement by reading what was not written on the page.

    The BBC’s disinformation specialist, Marianna Spring, comes from a posh London family and claims that her experience watching BBC World News on holiday was what set her on her path to becoming a “brilliant reporter” who can’t even tell the truth about her own work background in a job application. She agreed to speak to Darren Nesbit of The Light, only on the condition that she can ask him questions and record the interview too.

    For her, everything from financial turmoil to climate change and 9/11 terror attacks in the US are random things that happen for absolutely no reason whatsoever and anyone who disbelieves whatever the TV tells them about these issues is a loony who deserve to be denounced, debanked and depersoned. She thinks the scamdemic was just one step towards doing that.

    The BBC has featured multiple radio and television series presented by Jimmy Savile, perhaps the most notorious paedophile of the 20th century. Savile abused his BBC connections to rape children all across Britain for decades with complete impunity, receiving a knighthood from Queen Elizardbeast in the process. Upon his death, the BBC lauded Savile as an “established showbusiness figure” and a “leading charity worker,” praising his “benevolent persona” and gushing over all the money he raised for charity.

    “It’s my job to report on the areas that I do and there are teams at the BBC who specialise in covering health, for example,” Ms. Spring says. She reiterates again and again that “I’m not a health reporter”. (<-Again, that damn period outside the quotation marks. Come on, BBC style guide, you’re killing me here!)

    “I think we have to weaponise those same tactics [of emotional manipulation] in the journalism we do and bring stuff to life so that people understand the impact it has and so that we can engage them in a range of formats.”

    Spring directly defended a comically fake scene known as the BBC Syrian Zombie footage (ref: 34:20 mark), which was staged for the BBC cameras by the terrorists attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.


    BBC Panorama – Saving Syria’s Children: The infamous Panorama documentary broadcast on 30 September 2013 which included faked sequences purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Aleppo, Syria, on 26 August 2013. See further information HERE.
    Marianna Spring believes this footage is real. Let that sink in.

    Ms. Spring asserts that “those people are not acting”, maintaining that “it’s actually quite disturbing, if I’m honest”.

    Nesbit asks her whether she thinks BBC censorship of dissenting opinions about the safety of covid vaccines could result in harm.

    She replies, “They’ve covered the vaccine rollout. They’ve covered the side effects. They’ve covered all kinds of things”.

    She tells Nesbit that the BBC doesn’t deny that a teeny-weeny eeny-meenie totally insignificant fraction of a sliver of a percentage point of people might have a slight reaction to (read: die suddenly from) the clot shots. But, Ms. Spring also says, “the number of people that would and could have died of Covid 19 is really, really high”.

    Nesbit directly asks her, “imagine if you found out that everything that you’ve been doing is wrong. Everything that the BBC was doing is wrong. How would that feel?”

    She replies, “I mean, but that’s just not the case”.

    Throughout the interview, Ms. Spring claims to be on the side of truth and accuracy—and then gives cryptic answers, which seem to contradict that.

    YouTube has not responded to the TCR’s request for comment about why it has allowed the BBC and other coincidence theory broadcasters to share violent and hateful rhetoric.

    Research carried out by multiple ratings agencies backs up the idea that calls to action endorsed by coincidence theory media like the BBC are now being ignored by nearly everyone.

    Recent data shows audiences are abandoning the BBC in droves, with every BBC radio station losing audience share last year, its TV news network losing a million viewers this year, and the broadcaster now facing an “existential crisis” over the mass of people who are refusing to pay their TV licence extortion fee. The average Brit is more likely to care what Karl Pilkington thinks about the news of the week than what that sex pest Huw Edwards or any of the other weirdos employed by Auntie Beeb think about it.

    “The BBC is part of a system of thought control complicit in the deaths of millions of people abroad, in severe political oppression at home, and in the possible termination of human life on this planet,” write Media Lens contributors David Edward and David Cromwell, who have studied the BBC.

    “In truth, the BBC’s relationship with the establishment was accurately summarised long ago, in a single diary entry made by the BBC’s own founder, Lord Reith: ‘They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.’”


    Marianna Spring defends the broadcaster’s right to publish opinions associated with the deep state.
    As well as links with the British foreign office and intelligence services (but I repeat myself), the BBC has counterpart government-funded mouthpiece broadcasters in Canada and Australia.

    Many media whistleblowers have spoken about their concerns over how extreme the BBC’s propaganda has become.

    They say some of the BBC’s key trustees and personnel are directly connected to intelligence agencies, government offices and corporate and financial executives.

    One of the whistleblowers, journalist Tony Gosling, who stopped working for the Beeb in 1993, writes, “Today’s broadcasting executives are being drafted in straight from the Temple of Mammon,” citing the BBC’s takeover by banking executives, an apparent reference to their 2014 appointment of former HSBC director Rona Fairhead as chair of the BBC Trust.

    As of press time, Eric Blair was unavailable for comment on how far the BBC has devolved into outright propaganda, warmongering and disinformation, but a strange rolling sound could be heard coming from his grave.

    [Related: James Corbett: The BBC was clearly exposed as part of the propaganda machine in 2013 and BBC wants to be the sole source of truth and it’s getting roasted for it.]

    The Corbett Report: The BBC Exposed (2013), 7 October 2023 (54 mins)
    About the Author

    The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. It operates on the principle of open-source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.

    It is edited, web mastered, written, produced and hosted by award-winning investigative journalist James Corbett. To support The Corbett Report and receive its newsletter, sign up to become a member of the website HERE.

    Featured image: Marianna Spring (left). Book cover for ‘Is That True or Did You Hear It on the BBC?: Disinformation and the BBC’ by David Sedgwick (right).



    https://expose-news.com/2023/10/15/bbc-coincidence-theory-broadcaster/
    The Corbett Report unveils the BBC, a coincidence theory broadcaster – Must read! Rhoda WilsonOctober 15, 2023 James Corbett’s hit piece about the BBC in the style of the BBC’s own hit pieces featuring Marianna Spring, the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent. As he says – enjoy! Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… The Beeb: Inside the UK’s coincidence theory broadcaster that shares violence and hate By James Corbett, The Corbett Report Remember ‘Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? I Will!!!’, where I shone the spotlight of shame on Marianna Spring, the BBC’s “specialist disinformation correspondent” who was recently busted for having lied about her own work history on her CV? And remember my recent Solutions Watch episode on ‘The Newspaper Revolution’, wherein I picked apart ‘The Light: Inside the UK’s conspiracy theory newspaper that shares violence and hate’, a Spring-penned hit piece on Darren Nesbit of The Light newspaper? And remember when, in the course of dissecting Spring’s article, I mused that I should write a parody of her style, demonstrating how mindless and risible that flavour of establishment hatchet job “journalism” really is? Well, this week I present to you exactly that: a hit piece about the BBC in the style of the BBC’s own hit pieces! Enjoy! (Note: All ridiculous grammatical constructions, pompous journalistic syntax and awkward, clunky turns of phrase have been copied directly from Spring’s propaganda piece. Blame her, not me!) Marianna Spring, BBC disinfo specialist, got her start in the business by lying on her CV The Corbett Report anti-disinformation special correspondent A UK coincidence theory broadcaster sharing calls for censoring their journalistic competition, debanking their domestic opposition and executing their foreign opposition and even innocent civilians has links with the British government and with intelligence agencies involved in coups and assassination attempts around the world, The Corbett Report can reveal. The BBC, which is seen by at least 1,000 octogenarians who never learned how to change the channel on their 1960s television set and which boasts more than 100 followers on its social media site BBC Online, grew to be a focal point of the UK coincidence theory movement with its pro-vaccine, pro-lockdown stance during the scamdemic. In its pages and on its corresponding streaming platform, the BBC has shared hateful and violent rhetoric towards journalists, medics and Members of Parliament, as well as platforming hereditary psychopaths accused of participating in The Great Reset. The broadcaster is funded by a tax on televisions masquerading as a “TV licence” and would NEVER be promoted by volunteers in dozens of towns across the country, where local leaders rely on it to promote their false and misleading claims about vaccines, the financial system and climate change, amid other more mundane articles on local politics, health and wellness. Articles and content shared by the BBC have called for the government, doctors, nurses and journalists to be punished for refusing to participate in the globalists’ crimes against humanity. Recent articles declare “The haters and conspiracy theorists [are] back on Twitter” (despite being unable to back up that claim) and fret about how poor (read: rich), beleaguered (read: pampered) Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is “grappling with Western war fatigue” (read: average people realising that their government is more concerned with keeping the military-industrial gravy train rolling than with keeping their own government functioning). Other posts shared by the BBC on Tumblr (WARNING: do NOT search “bbc” on Tumblr!) have featured hard-hitting news about a 700 year-old vampire skeleton on display in Bulgaria and a deep-dive investigation of a 75-year-old grandma bodybuilder. (And who can forget that classic, award-worthy exemplar of journalism, “Woman wan troway poo-poo, come trap for window“?) On Twitter, the broadcaster has also shared and endorsed content from utter psychos and nutjobs, gloating about the death of their rivals and making up fake stories about their political enemies, whilst simultaneously deleting tweets from staffers who admitted that scenes of chemical weapons attacks in Syria were staged for Western media. It has also consistently harboured, protected and promoted sexual deviants, including one of the most infamous (royally connected) paedophiles and neocrophiles in modern history. Marianna Spring, the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent, defended her broadcaster’s history of promoting and defending paedophiles before telling The Light newspaper that these matters are “above my pay grade.” If the BBC published a paper, how many people do you think would be volunteering to buy them in bulk and hand them out to people on the street? Spring says she isn’t in charge of the BBC’s newsroom, although acknowledges that everyone in said newsroom thinks exactly alike and believes themselves to be arbiters of truth who can tell the little people when they are guilty of wrongthink. Posts are sometimes published uncredited and sometimes appear under the author’s byline. Ms. Spring acknowledges that BBC Media Action does indeed receive funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but stresses that BBC Media Action is totally separate from BBC News and how dare you conflate the two. She has published content endorsing the Gates Foundation’s aim of combatting vaccine “hesitancy” by deceiving others about how safe and effective they are. The British government has boasted about its use of the BBC as a proxy for controlling news and information abroad, noting that its interests are “well served” by its collaboration with the broadcaster. Referring to concerns about the wider coincidence theory movement more generally, the UK’s chief forensic researcher of mainstream propaganda narratives, Iain Davis, has written on his Substack that “[t]he narratives she [Spring] has presented to her BBC audience are riddled with inconsistencies and factual errors” and that “she has routinely ignored evidence without justification and has offered risible supposed ‘facts’ to support, what is clearly, propaganda”. [<-Yes, dear grammar Nazis, it’s the BBC that puts the period outside of the quotation marks, not me! Check the original!] Set up in 1922 as a government mouthpiece, the BBC is distributed in about 30 places across the UK such as Brighton, Thetford, Stroud, Plymouth, Oxford, Bristol, Manchester and Glastonbury. Local coincidence theory groups gather at the corner pub several nights a week to discuss the most recent propaganda blared at them through the tele. In the Devon town of Totnes, a demotivated minority have been leaving the BBC on in the background while they do the washing up for years. Its former town Mayor Ben Piper says he first became a key target of the conspiracy realist movement there because of his role enforcing draconian, anti-human lockdown policies, as dictated by his globalist overlords. Former mayor of Totnes Ben Piper says everything bad that happens to him (including when he stubbed his toe yesterday) is probably the result of things that weren’t written about him by those independent journalist meanies. He fears that every unpleasant incident that happens in his personal life is now a direct result of the free flow of information enabled by independent media platforms and implies that the world will not be safe until every last citizen journalist has been jailed and news can be delivered only via the mockingbird repeaters of the BBC. “There was an aggression that bled through the editorial that was not as innocent as it was making out to be,” he says about an unflattering piece about him that appeared in The Light, apparently unaware that his statement is an admission that the article didn’t actually say anything aggressive in the first place and that he can only construe it as incitement by reading what was not written on the page. The BBC’s disinformation specialist, Marianna Spring, comes from a posh London family and claims that her experience watching BBC World News on holiday was what set her on her path to becoming a “brilliant reporter” who can’t even tell the truth about her own work background in a job application. She agreed to speak to Darren Nesbit of The Light, only on the condition that she can ask him questions and record the interview too. For her, everything from financial turmoil to climate change and 9/11 terror attacks in the US are random things that happen for absolutely no reason whatsoever and anyone who disbelieves whatever the TV tells them about these issues is a loony who deserve to be denounced, debanked and depersoned. She thinks the scamdemic was just one step towards doing that. The BBC has featured multiple radio and television series presented by Jimmy Savile, perhaps the most notorious paedophile of the 20th century. Savile abused his BBC connections to rape children all across Britain for decades with complete impunity, receiving a knighthood from Queen Elizardbeast in the process. Upon his death, the BBC lauded Savile as an “established showbusiness figure” and a “leading charity worker,” praising his “benevolent persona” and gushing over all the money he raised for charity. “It’s my job to report on the areas that I do and there are teams at the BBC who specialise in covering health, for example,” Ms. Spring says. She reiterates again and again that “I’m not a health reporter”. (<-Again, that damn period outside the quotation marks. Come on, BBC style guide, you’re killing me here!) “I think we have to weaponise those same tactics [of emotional manipulation] in the journalism we do and bring stuff to life so that people understand the impact it has and so that we can engage them in a range of formats.” Spring directly defended a comically fake scene known as the BBC Syrian Zombie footage (ref: 34:20 mark), which was staged for the BBC cameras by the terrorists attempting to overthrow the Syrian government. BBC Panorama – Saving Syria’s Children: The infamous Panorama documentary broadcast on 30 September 2013 which included faked sequences purporting to show the aftermath of an incendiary bomb attack on a school in Aleppo, Syria, on 26 August 2013. See further information HERE. Marianna Spring believes this footage is real. Let that sink in. Ms. Spring asserts that “those people are not acting”, maintaining that “it’s actually quite disturbing, if I’m honest”. Nesbit asks her whether she thinks BBC censorship of dissenting opinions about the safety of covid vaccines could result in harm. She replies, “They’ve covered the vaccine rollout. They’ve covered the side effects. They’ve covered all kinds of things”. She tells Nesbit that the BBC doesn’t deny that a teeny-weeny eeny-meenie totally insignificant fraction of a sliver of a percentage point of people might have a slight reaction to (read: die suddenly from) the clot shots. But, Ms. Spring also says, “the number of people that would and could have died of Covid 19 is really, really high”. Nesbit directly asks her, “imagine if you found out that everything that you’ve been doing is wrong. Everything that the BBC was doing is wrong. How would that feel?” She replies, “I mean, but that’s just not the case”. Throughout the interview, Ms. Spring claims to be on the side of truth and accuracy—and then gives cryptic answers, which seem to contradict that. YouTube has not responded to the TCR’s request for comment about why it has allowed the BBC and other coincidence theory broadcasters to share violent and hateful rhetoric. Research carried out by multiple ratings agencies backs up the idea that calls to action endorsed by coincidence theory media like the BBC are now being ignored by nearly everyone. Recent data shows audiences are abandoning the BBC in droves, with every BBC radio station losing audience share last year, its TV news network losing a million viewers this year, and the broadcaster now facing an “existential crisis” over the mass of people who are refusing to pay their TV licence extortion fee. The average Brit is more likely to care what Karl Pilkington thinks about the news of the week than what that sex pest Huw Edwards or any of the other weirdos employed by Auntie Beeb think about it. “The BBC is part of a system of thought control complicit in the deaths of millions of people abroad, in severe political oppression at home, and in the possible termination of human life on this planet,” write Media Lens contributors David Edward and David Cromwell, who have studied the BBC. “In truth, the BBC’s relationship with the establishment was accurately summarised long ago, in a single diary entry made by the BBC’s own founder, Lord Reith: ‘They know they can trust us not to be really impartial.’” Marianna Spring defends the broadcaster’s right to publish opinions associated with the deep state. As well as links with the British foreign office and intelligence services (but I repeat myself), the BBC has counterpart government-funded mouthpiece broadcasters in Canada and Australia. Many media whistleblowers have spoken about their concerns over how extreme the BBC’s propaganda has become. They say some of the BBC’s key trustees and personnel are directly connected to intelligence agencies, government offices and corporate and financial executives. One of the whistleblowers, journalist Tony Gosling, who stopped working for the Beeb in 1993, writes, “Today’s broadcasting executives are being drafted in straight from the Temple of Mammon,” citing the BBC’s takeover by banking executives, an apparent reference to their 2014 appointment of former HSBC director Rona Fairhead as chair of the BBC Trust. As of press time, Eric Blair was unavailable for comment on how far the BBC has devolved into outright propaganda, warmongering and disinformation, but a strange rolling sound could be heard coming from his grave. [Related: James Corbett: The BBC was clearly exposed as part of the propaganda machine in 2013 and BBC wants to be the sole source of truth and it’s getting roasted for it.] The Corbett Report: The BBC Exposed (2013), 7 October 2023 (54 mins) About the Author The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. It operates on the principle of open-source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more. It is edited, web mastered, written, produced and hosted by award-winning investigative journalist James Corbett. To support The Corbett Report and receive its newsletter, sign up to become a member of the website HERE. Featured image: Marianna Spring (left). Book cover for ‘Is That True or Did You Hear It on the BBC?: Disinformation and the BBC’ by David Sedgwick (right). https://expose-news.com/2023/10/15/bbc-coincidence-theory-broadcaster/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    The Corbett Report unveils the BBC, a coincidence theory broadcaster – Must read!
    James Corbett’s hit piece about the BBC in the style of the BBC’s own hit pieces featuring Marianna Spring, the BBC’s disinformation and social media correspondent. As he says &#8…
    0 Comments 0 Shares 17959 Views
  • The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol
    Peter Whoriskey

    Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post)
    The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.

    The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

    The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.

    [Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious]

    The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.

    While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice.

    Story continues below advertisement

    The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks.

    After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle.

    “So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture.

    [Here’s what the government’s dietary guidelines should really say]

    While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said.

    Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.”

    “There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said.

    But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice.

    Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers.

    Story continues below advertisement

    Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided.

    Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning.

    The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s.

    As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition.

    Story continues below advertisement

    “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

    Now comes the shift on cholesterol.

    Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol."

    Story continues below advertisement

    Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol.

    “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado.

    The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.”

    Story continues below advertisement

    "We just don't know," he said.

    Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk.

    “The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.”

    The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger.

    As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians.

    It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries.

    In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big.

    “It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper.

    But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus.

    Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease.

    Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.)

    Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol."

    What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol.

    Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets.

    “It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

    As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet.

    “The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.”

    In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame.

    Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol.

    “Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.”

    Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition.

    Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget.

    The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment.

    Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress.

    “These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.”

    When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ”

    Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way.

    “Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.”

    Did the government’s dietary guidelines help make us fat?

    A local's guide to Mumbai, India

    5 simple Indian recipes to make at home

    Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious

    Ghee has been an Indian staple for millennia. Now the rest of the world is catching on.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.1982832f86fa
    The U.S. government is poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol Peter Whoriskey Time to put eggs back on the menu? (Deb Lindsey for The Washington Post) The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern. The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. Story continues below advertisement The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter. [Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious] The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets. While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice. Story continues below advertisement The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks. After Marian Neuhouser, chair of the relevant subcommittee, announced the decision to the panel at the December meeting, one panelist appeared to bridle. “So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.” Story continues below advertisement Members of the panel, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, said they would not comment until the publication of their report, which will be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. [Here’s what the government’s dietary guidelines should really say] While those agencies could ignore the committee’s recommendations, major deviations are not common, experts said. Five years ago, “I don’t think the Dietary Guidelines diverged from the committee’s report,” said Naomi K. Fukagawa, a University of Vermont professor who served as the committee’s vice chair in 2010. Fukagawa said she supports the change on cholesterol. Story continues below advertisement Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, also called the turnaround on cholesterol a “reasonable move.” “There’s been a shift of thinking,” he said. But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice. Cholesterol has been a fixture in dietary warnings in the United States at least since 1961, when it appeared in guidelines developed by the American Heart Association. Later adopted by the federal government, such warnings helped shift eating habits -- per capita egg consumption dropped about 30 percent -- and harmed egg farmers. Story continues below advertisement Yet even today, after more than a century of scientific inquiry, scientists are divided. Some nutritionists said lifting the cholesterol warning is long overdue, noting that the United States is out-of-step with other countries, where diet guidelines do not single out cholesterol. Others support maintaining a warning. The forthcoming version of the Dietary Guidelines -- the document is revised every five years -- is expected to navigate myriad similar controversies. Among them: salt, red meat, sugar, saturated fats and the latest darling of food-makers, Omega-3s. As with cholesterol, the dietary panel’s advice on these issues will be used by the federal bureaucrats to draft the new guidelines, which offer Americans clear instructions -- and sometimes very specific, down-to-the-milligram prescriptions. But such precision can mask sometimes tumultuous debates about nutrition. Story continues below advertisement “Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?” Now comes the shift on cholesterol. Even as contrary evidence has emerged over the years, the campaign against dietary cholesterol has continued. In 1994, food-makers were required to report cholesterol values on the nutrition label. In 2010, with the publication of the most recent “Dietary Guidelines,” the experts again focused on the problem of "excess dietary cholesterol." Story continues below advertisement Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol. “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado. The current U.S. guidelines call for restricting cholesterol intake to 300 milligrams daily. American adult men on average ingest about 340 milligrams of cholesterol a day, according to federal figures. That recommended figure of 300 milligrams, Eckel said, is " just one of those things that gets carried forward and carried forward even though the evidence is minimal.” Story continues below advertisement "We just don't know," he said. Other major studies have indicated that eating an egg a day does not raise a healthy person’s risk of heart disease, though diabetic patients may be at more risk. “The U.S. is the last country in the world to set a specific limit on dietary cholesterol,” said David Klurfeld, a nutrition scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Some of it is scientific inertia.” The persistence of the cholesterol fear may arise, in part, from the plausibility of its danger. As far back as the 19th century, scientists recognized that the plaque that clogged arteries consisted, in part, of cholesterol, according to historians. It would have seemed logical, then, that a diet that is high in cholesterol would wind up clogging arteries. In 1913, Niokolai Anitschkov and his colleagues at the Czar’s Military Medicine Institute in St. Petersburg, decided to try it out in rabbits. The group fed cholesterol to rabbits for about four to eight weeks and saw that the cholesterol diet harmed them. They figured they were on to something big. “It often happens in the history of science that researchers ... obtain results which require us to view scientific questions in a new light,” he and a colleague wrote in their 1913 paper. But it wasn’t until the 1940s, when heart disease was rising in the United States, that the dangers of a cholesterol diet for humans would come more sharply into focus. Experiments in biology, as well as other studies that followed the diets of large populations, seemed to link high cholesterol diets to heart disease. Public warnings soon followed. In 1961, the American Heart Association recommended that people reduce cholesterol consumption and eventually set a limit of 300 milligrams a day. (For comparison, the yolk of a single egg has about 200 milligrams.) Eventually, the idea that cholesterol is harmful so permeated the country's consciousness that marketers advertised their foods on the basis of "no cholesterol." What Anitschkov and the other early scientists may not have foreseen is how complicated the science of cholesterol and heart disease could turn out: that the body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than their diet provides, that the body regulates how much is in the blood and that there is both “good” and “bad” cholesterol. Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets. “It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine. As a graduate student at the University of Arkansas in the late 1960s, Rudel came across Anitschkov’s paper and decided to focus on understanding one of its curiosities. In passing, the paper noted that while the cholesterol diet harmed rabbits, it had no effect on white rats. In fact, if Anitschkov had focused on any other animal besides the rabbit, the effects wouldn't have been so clear -- rabbits are unusually vulnerable to the high-cholesterol diet. “The reason for the difference -- why does one animal fall apart on the cholesterol diet -- seemed like something that could be figured out,” Rudel said. “That was 40 or so years ago. We still don’t know what explains the difference.” In truth, scientists have made some progress. Rudel and his colleagues have been able to breed squirrel monkeys that are more vulnerable to the cholesterol diet. That and other evidence leads to their belief that for some people -- as for the squirrel monkeys -- genetics are to blame. Rudel said that Americans should still be warned about cholesterol. “Eggs are a nearly perfect food, but cholesterol is a potential bad guy,” he said. “Eating too much a day won’t harm everyone, but it will harm some people.” Scientists have estimated that, even without counting the toll from obesity, disease related to poor eating habits kills more than half a million people every year. That toll is often used as an argument for more research in nutrition. Currently, the National Institutes of Health spends about $1.5 billion annually on nutrition research, an amount that represents about 5 percent of its total budget. The turnaround on cholesterol, some critics say, is just more evidence that nutrition science needs more investment. Others, however, say the reversal might be seen as a sign of progress. “These reversals in the field do make us wonder and scratch our heads,” said David Allison, a public health professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “But in science, change is normal and expected.” When our view of the cosmos shifted from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Newton and Einstein, Allison said, “the reaction was not to say, ‘Oh my gosh, something is wrong with physics!’ We say, ‘Oh my gosh, isn’t this cool?’ ” Allison said the problem in nutrition stems from the arrogance that sometimes accompanies dietary advice. A little humility could go a long way. “Where nutrition has some trouble,” he said, “is all the confidence and vitriol and moralism that goes along with our recommendations.” Did the government’s dietary guidelines help make us fat? A local's guide to Mumbai, India 5 simple Indian recipes to make at home Scientists have figured out what makes Indian food so delicious Ghee has been an Indian staple for millennia. Now the rest of the world is catching on. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?utm_term=.1982832f86fa
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 14983 Views
  • Burning Inferno of Gaza: Part 1
    Brig. General Asif H. RajaNovember 16, 2023

    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

    $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts
    Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.

    Burning Inferno of Gaza

    by: Asif Haroon Raja

    Part-1

    Background History of Creation of Israel

    The Christan Zionists had emerged in 1890 and grew in London. In 1905, Arthur James Balfour promulgated the 1905 Aliens Act to stop the immigration to Britain of the Jewish refugees fleeing anti-Semitism in Russia. Theodor Herzl was the founder of Zionist movement. He floated the idea of a Jewish state for the wandering Jews in Europe suffering at the hands of Christian anti-Semites. The latter wanted to get rid of the Jews. The project of sending all Jews to Palestine was jointly pursued by the Zionist movement and the British anti-Semites.



    The Balfour Declaration of Nov 6, 1917 was inked at the behest of Zionist Rothchild with a view to provide a homeland for the Jews. After the 2nd world war, Palestine became the colony of Britain, which considered it a fit place for a Jewish State.

    Palestine

    Palestine, where the great majority was of the Arab Muslims extended from River Jordan in the East to the Mediterranean in the West, and from Ras Al Naqarush in the North to Umm Al-Rashrash in the South. It was a prosperous state where all the communities lived in harmony without any discrimination.

    At the start of the 20th century, the Jewish population in Palestine was less than 5%. After 1920, it swelled to over 30% due to manipulated immigration from Europe. From 1945 onwards the intensity of immigration of Jews to Palestine intensified and the UK helped the Jews to buy lands and properties and to settle down.

    In 1947-48, the militant gangs of the Zionist Jews resorted to terrorism and systematically demolished 531 Palestinian villages. In 1947, the UK proposed division of Palestine, which was executed by the UN to carve out a state for the Jews in May 1948. Almost half of Palestine was awarded to Israel. Before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in May 1948, 200 villages were destroyed.

    It gave birth to the Arab-Israeli conflict and led to the 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars. The combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Iraq supported by other Arab countries were roundly defeated by the IDF in all the wars.

    Displacement of Palestinians

    In 1948, two forcible displacements of 250,000 and 350,000 Palestinians took place They were expelled from their homes. In May 1948, another 750,000 were displaced/expelled and forced to live as refugees in several Arab States, West Bank (WB), and Gaza Strip which is just 365 Sq area, 41 KM long and 6 KM wide. It now has about 2.5 million people.

    During the 2nd Intifada, about 5000 homes were demolished and 50,000 Palestinians were displaced. From 2009 to 2023, 9000 homes were destroyed and 1,50,000 Palestinians killed/injured.

    In the current war in Gaza, 1.4 million Gazans have been displaced.

    Settlement of Jews

    During the Partition plan, the Jews owned 7% of the land in Palestine and its population was 55%. In 1947, the Jewish possessions in Palestine were 9-12% of cultivable land, which increased to 81% in 1977.

    From 1967 to May 1977, Israel established 133 settlements in occupied territories of WB, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and Sinai. Since 1979, settlers in WB have risen from 3200 to 17,400. In East Jerusalem, the number of settlers has risen to 80,000.

    From 1949 to 1967, Israel gobbled up 78% of Palestinian lands, and thereafter continued to nibble more territory, reducing the territory held by the Palestinians to only 8%.

    The Western world and the UN legitimized Israel’s robbery of land and wanton barbarities against the victims under the plea of right to self-defense.

    Peace Efforts

    PLO was created in 1964 by Yasser Arafat, which started an armed resistance movement in the late 1960s after Israel launched its policy of settling Jews in Palestinian lands.

    The Madrid Conference in 1991 jointly chaired by George Bush senior and Gorbachev was the first attempt to bring the Arabs and Israelis on a negotiating table.

    Oslo Accords was signed by Israel under Yitzhak Rabin and PLO in 1993. Yasser Arafat agreed to recognize Israel in return for peace and a two-state solution. He earned the animosity of hawkish members in PLO, he fell ill and died in Paris hospital. Many speculated that he was slow-poisoned to death.

    In pursuance of the peace agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and agreed to hand over 97% of WB territory. It agreed to recognize Palestine as an independent State comprising Gaza, WB and East Jerusalem as its capital, for which the PLA was created.

    Camp David summit hosted by Bill Clinton for the final settlement in 2000 proved inconclusive, because of disagreements on territory, refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

    The next phase of resistance put up by the PLO was in the form of unarmed Intifada in 2001, in which children threw stones on the occupying Israeli forces. Their sole demand was to return their occupied lands and grant them the right to exist independently.

    Road map for peace formulated in 2003 met a similar fate due to Israel’s obduracy and boycott by Hamas. Same happened with the Annapolis Conference hosted by George Bush junior in 2007.

    Another effort was made by John Kerry to revive peace talks in 2013-14, but Hamas rejected the talks for being tilted in favor of Israel.

    Trump played a role in brokering Abraham Accords in 2020 which led to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab States. Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and the USA hastened to shift its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    Not only did Israel violate the peace deal, it launched a vigorous forward settlement program to further encroach into the Palestinian territory and to change the demography of Gaza, WB and East Jerusalem that were illegally annexed in 1967.

    Number of illegal settlers rose from 200,000 in 2008 to over 700,000 in 2023. It laid to rest the two-state solution.

    Rise of Hamas

    Mehmood Abbas who succeeded Arafat after the death of Arafat as the head of PLA, made compromises with Israel, which defanged the resistance movement and made him unpopular. His unpopularity gave space to a new political party ‘Hamas’ under Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza.

    Hamas was elected with a big majority in 2006 elections in which the non-performing PLA under Abbas was defeated. The latter, egged on by Israel, refused to accept the results and formed its own government in the WB in 2007.

    Hamas govt was democratically elected, but it was not accepted by Tel Aviv and its chief patron USA, and was declared a terrorist group. Israel and the USA played a role in creating misgivings and pitting the PLA against Hamas to weaken the Palestine cause.

    Hamas bettered the lives of the Gazans through good governance and honesty and won their hearts which was not to the liking of Israel. The IDF carried out ruthless ground and air offensives against Gaza from 2008 to 2020, killing and injuring 120,286 innocent people and destroying their infrastructure and livelihoods. Deaths and injuries of Israelis were 5887. Al-Aqsa Mosque was repeatedly desecrated even when the Palestinians were praying.

    This was done in a bid to topple Hamas Govt, or to compel the Gazans to detach themselves from Hamas, but they didn’t, and have braved the barbarism of Israel. Despite friendship with Abbas, Israel kept encroaching into WB and killing the Palestinians and established over one hundred new settlements.

    Israel’s aggressive policies forced Hamas to create a militant wing for the defence of Gaza.

    Role of the USA

    The US has been protecting and safeguarding the interests of Israel since its creation in 1948. It helped Israel to become a nuclear power and the strongest power in the ME, and its airspace, border and coastline was made impregnable. The militarily and economically strong Arab States were neutralized and tamed. The US and Europe justified Israel’s sins against humanity by arguing that it is a victim of aggression and has the right of self-defense. Ignoring the extreme pains of the Palestinians and their legitimate resistance movement, who were deprived of their lands and homes, they are accused of unprovoked cruel aggression against Jews.

    Heavy military assistance to Israel by the USA is considered rightful, but humanitarian assistance to the Gazans is seen by the duplicitous West as illegal.

    The certificate of terrorism given to the Palestinians by the US led West and unwavering support of the US encouraged Israel to constantly delegitimize, brutalize and dehumanize them, deprive them of their right of self-defense, or to seek basic human rights.

    A stage came in 2020 during Donad Trump era, that the Arab States abandoned the cause of the Palestinians as well as the two-state solution and decided to recognize Israel. They took the plea that friendship with Israel would help in resolving the Palestinian dispute.

    After several Arab States opened diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, the change of scenario emboldened an arrogant Netanyahu to boast that in near future there will be no Palestine on the map of the world.

    Pressure was mounted on Pakistan to recognize Israel. The main argument of pro-Israel lobbies was that when the directly involved Arab nations had changed their policies, there was no earthly reason for Pakistan not to recognize Israel with which it doesn’t share border and there is no dispute between the two. They further argued that it was hypocritical to maintain friendly relations with the USA and hostility with Israel.

    Ambitions of the Imperialist Powers

    The Muslim leaders must understand the future ambitions of the three imperialist strategic partners – USA, ISRAEL and INDIA.

    The US wants to control the global resources and monopolize the world after neo-colonizing the Middle East.

    Israel’s quest is to create Greater Israel, which stretches from River Nile to Euphrates and includes parts of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria.

    India strives for Mahabharata, which envisages the whole of South Asia, Afghanistan, parts of Central Asia, Iran and Indonesia, and stretches up to the Gulf region.

    Both Israel and India backed by the USA are pursuing uniform policies of genocide, rapes, destruction and change of demographic complexion of the occupied territories.

    Both have broken all records of tyranny, cruelty and human rights, but being the darlings of the West, all their sins are ignored. Instead of restraining them or punishing them, they are encouraged and further strengthened by their patrons.

    To be continued… Stay Tuned for Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4

    The writer is a retd Brig Gen, war veteran, defence, security and political analyst, international columnist, author of five books, MSc War Studies, served as Directing Staff in Staff College Quetta, defence attaché Egypt and Sudan and Dean of the Corps of military attaches, held high staff and command appointments, after retirement he was appointed Colonel of the Battalion he commanded, he chaired Thinkers Forum Pakistan for 4 years, takes part in TV talk shows. [email protected]

    Brig. General Asif Haroon Raja is on the board of advisors for Opinion Maker. He holds an MSc war studies degree. A second-generation officer, he fought the epic battle of Hilli in northwest East Bengal during 1971 war,

    He served as Directing Staff Command & Staff College, Defence Attaché Egypt, and Sudan and Dean of Corps of Military Attaches in Cairo. He commanded the heaviest brigade in Kashmir. He is tri-lingual and speaks English, Pashto, and Punjabi fluently.

    Currently, he is a defense analyst and columnist and writes articles on security, defense, and political matters for numerous international/national publications. He is chairman at the Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre, & Member CWC PESS & Veterans Think Tank

    He is also the author of many books; ‘Battle of Hilli’, ‘1948, 1965 & 1971 Kashmir Battles and Freedom Struggle’, ‘Muhammad bin Qasim to Gen Musharraf’, and Roots of 1971 Tragedy’. His latest book is ‘Tangled knot of Kashmir : Indo-Pakistan antagonism: vol. 1 and vol. 2″

    www.opinion-maker.com


    ATTENTION READERS

    We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
    In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

    About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
    Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/burning-inferno-of-gaza-part-1/
    Burning Inferno of Gaza: Part 1 Brig. General Asif H. RajaNovember 16, 2023 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. Burning Inferno of Gaza by: Asif Haroon Raja Part-1 Background History of Creation of Israel The Christan Zionists had emerged in 1890 and grew in London. In 1905, Arthur James Balfour promulgated the 1905 Aliens Act to stop the immigration to Britain of the Jewish refugees fleeing anti-Semitism in Russia. Theodor Herzl was the founder of Zionist movement. He floated the idea of a Jewish state for the wandering Jews in Europe suffering at the hands of Christian anti-Semites. The latter wanted to get rid of the Jews. The project of sending all Jews to Palestine was jointly pursued by the Zionist movement and the British anti-Semites. The Balfour Declaration of Nov 6, 1917 was inked at the behest of Zionist Rothchild with a view to provide a homeland for the Jews. After the 2nd world war, Palestine became the colony of Britain, which considered it a fit place for a Jewish State. Palestine Palestine, where the great majority was of the Arab Muslims extended from River Jordan in the East to the Mediterranean in the West, and from Ras Al Naqarush in the North to Umm Al-Rashrash in the South. It was a prosperous state where all the communities lived in harmony without any discrimination. At the start of the 20th century, the Jewish population in Palestine was less than 5%. After 1920, it swelled to over 30% due to manipulated immigration from Europe. From 1945 onwards the intensity of immigration of Jews to Palestine intensified and the UK helped the Jews to buy lands and properties and to settle down. In 1947-48, the militant gangs of the Zionist Jews resorted to terrorism and systematically demolished 531 Palestinian villages. In 1947, the UK proposed division of Palestine, which was executed by the UN to carve out a state for the Jews in May 1948. Almost half of Palestine was awarded to Israel. Before the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in May 1948, 200 villages were destroyed. It gave birth to the Arab-Israeli conflict and led to the 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars. The combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Iraq supported by other Arab countries were roundly defeated by the IDF in all the wars. Displacement of Palestinians In 1948, two forcible displacements of 250,000 and 350,000 Palestinians took place They were expelled from their homes. In May 1948, another 750,000 were displaced/expelled and forced to live as refugees in several Arab States, West Bank (WB), and Gaza Strip which is just 365 Sq area, 41 KM long and 6 KM wide. It now has about 2.5 million people. During the 2nd Intifada, about 5000 homes were demolished and 50,000 Palestinians were displaced. From 2009 to 2023, 9000 homes were destroyed and 1,50,000 Palestinians killed/injured. In the current war in Gaza, 1.4 million Gazans have been displaced. Settlement of Jews During the Partition plan, the Jews owned 7% of the land in Palestine and its population was 55%. In 1947, the Jewish possessions in Palestine were 9-12% of cultivable land, which increased to 81% in 1977. From 1967 to May 1977, Israel established 133 settlements in occupied territories of WB, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip and Sinai. Since 1979, settlers in WB have risen from 3200 to 17,400. In East Jerusalem, the number of settlers has risen to 80,000. From 1949 to 1967, Israel gobbled up 78% of Palestinian lands, and thereafter continued to nibble more territory, reducing the territory held by the Palestinians to only 8%. The Western world and the UN legitimized Israel’s robbery of land and wanton barbarities against the victims under the plea of right to self-defense. Peace Efforts PLO was created in 1964 by Yasser Arafat, which started an armed resistance movement in the late 1960s after Israel launched its policy of settling Jews in Palestinian lands. The Madrid Conference in 1991 jointly chaired by George Bush senior and Gorbachev was the first attempt to bring the Arabs and Israelis on a negotiating table. Oslo Accords was signed by Israel under Yitzhak Rabin and PLO in 1993. Yasser Arafat agreed to recognize Israel in return for peace and a two-state solution. He earned the animosity of hawkish members in PLO, he fell ill and died in Paris hospital. Many speculated that he was slow-poisoned to death. In pursuance of the peace agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and agreed to hand over 97% of WB territory. It agreed to recognize Palestine as an independent State comprising Gaza, WB and East Jerusalem as its capital, for which the PLA was created. Camp David summit hosted by Bill Clinton for the final settlement in 2000 proved inconclusive, because of disagreements on territory, refugees and the status of Jerusalem. The next phase of resistance put up by the PLO was in the form of unarmed Intifada in 2001, in which children threw stones on the occupying Israeli forces. Their sole demand was to return their occupied lands and grant them the right to exist independently. Road map for peace formulated in 2003 met a similar fate due to Israel’s obduracy and boycott by Hamas. Same happened with the Annapolis Conference hosted by George Bush junior in 2007. Another effort was made by John Kerry to revive peace talks in 2013-14, but Hamas rejected the talks for being tilted in favor of Israel. Trump played a role in brokering Abraham Accords in 2020 which led to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab States. Israel declared Jerusalem as its capital and the USA hastened to shift its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Not only did Israel violate the peace deal, it launched a vigorous forward settlement program to further encroach into the Palestinian territory and to change the demography of Gaza, WB and East Jerusalem that were illegally annexed in 1967. Number of illegal settlers rose from 200,000 in 2008 to over 700,000 in 2023. It laid to rest the two-state solution. Rise of Hamas Mehmood Abbas who succeeded Arafat after the death of Arafat as the head of PLA, made compromises with Israel, which defanged the resistance movement and made him unpopular. His unpopularity gave space to a new political party ‘Hamas’ under Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza. Hamas was elected with a big majority in 2006 elections in which the non-performing PLA under Abbas was defeated. The latter, egged on by Israel, refused to accept the results and formed its own government in the WB in 2007. Hamas govt was democratically elected, but it was not accepted by Tel Aviv and its chief patron USA, and was declared a terrorist group. Israel and the USA played a role in creating misgivings and pitting the PLA against Hamas to weaken the Palestine cause. Hamas bettered the lives of the Gazans through good governance and honesty and won their hearts which was not to the liking of Israel. The IDF carried out ruthless ground and air offensives against Gaza from 2008 to 2020, killing and injuring 120,286 innocent people and destroying their infrastructure and livelihoods. Deaths and injuries of Israelis were 5887. Al-Aqsa Mosque was repeatedly desecrated even when the Palestinians were praying. This was done in a bid to topple Hamas Govt, or to compel the Gazans to detach themselves from Hamas, but they didn’t, and have braved the barbarism of Israel. Despite friendship with Abbas, Israel kept encroaching into WB and killing the Palestinians and established over one hundred new settlements. Israel’s aggressive policies forced Hamas to create a militant wing for the defence of Gaza. Role of the USA The US has been protecting and safeguarding the interests of Israel since its creation in 1948. It helped Israel to become a nuclear power and the strongest power in the ME, and its airspace, border and coastline was made impregnable. The militarily and economically strong Arab States were neutralized and tamed. The US and Europe justified Israel’s sins against humanity by arguing that it is a victim of aggression and has the right of self-defense. Ignoring the extreme pains of the Palestinians and their legitimate resistance movement, who were deprived of their lands and homes, they are accused of unprovoked cruel aggression against Jews. Heavy military assistance to Israel by the USA is considered rightful, but humanitarian assistance to the Gazans is seen by the duplicitous West as illegal. The certificate of terrorism given to the Palestinians by the US led West and unwavering support of the US encouraged Israel to constantly delegitimize, brutalize and dehumanize them, deprive them of their right of self-defense, or to seek basic human rights. A stage came in 2020 during Donad Trump era, that the Arab States abandoned the cause of the Palestinians as well as the two-state solution and decided to recognize Israel. They took the plea that friendship with Israel would help in resolving the Palestinian dispute. After several Arab States opened diplomatic and trade relations with Israel, the change of scenario emboldened an arrogant Netanyahu to boast that in near future there will be no Palestine on the map of the world. Pressure was mounted on Pakistan to recognize Israel. The main argument of pro-Israel lobbies was that when the directly involved Arab nations had changed their policies, there was no earthly reason for Pakistan not to recognize Israel with which it doesn’t share border and there is no dispute between the two. They further argued that it was hypocritical to maintain friendly relations with the USA and hostility with Israel. Ambitions of the Imperialist Powers The Muslim leaders must understand the future ambitions of the three imperialist strategic partners – USA, ISRAEL and INDIA. The US wants to control the global resources and monopolize the world after neo-colonizing the Middle East. Israel’s quest is to create Greater Israel, which stretches from River Nile to Euphrates and includes parts of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. India strives for Mahabharata, which envisages the whole of South Asia, Afghanistan, parts of Central Asia, Iran and Indonesia, and stretches up to the Gulf region. Both Israel and India backed by the USA are pursuing uniform policies of genocide, rapes, destruction and change of demographic complexion of the occupied territories. Both have broken all records of tyranny, cruelty and human rights, but being the darlings of the West, all their sins are ignored. Instead of restraining them or punishing them, they are encouraged and further strengthened by their patrons. To be continued… Stay Tuned for Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 The writer is a retd Brig Gen, war veteran, defence, security and political analyst, international columnist, author of five books, MSc War Studies, served as Directing Staff in Staff College Quetta, defence attaché Egypt and Sudan and Dean of the Corps of military attaches, held high staff and command appointments, after retirement he was appointed Colonel of the Battalion he commanded, he chaired Thinkers Forum Pakistan for 4 years, takes part in TV talk shows. [email protected] Brig. General Asif Haroon Raja is on the board of advisors for Opinion Maker. He holds an MSc war studies degree. A second-generation officer, he fought the epic battle of Hilli in northwest East Bengal during 1971 war, He served as Directing Staff Command & Staff College, Defence Attaché Egypt, and Sudan and Dean of Corps of Military Attaches in Cairo. He commanded the heaviest brigade in Kashmir. He is tri-lingual and speaks English, Pashto, and Punjabi fluently. Currently, he is a defense analyst and columnist and writes articles on security, defense, and political matters for numerous international/national publications. He is chairman at the Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Director Measac Research Centre, & Member CWC PESS & Veterans Think Tank He is also the author of many books; ‘Battle of Hilli’, ‘1948, 1965 & 1971 Kashmir Battles and Freedom Struggle’, ‘Muhammad bin Qasim to Gen Musharraf’, and Roots of 1971 Tragedy’. His latest book is ‘Tangled knot of Kashmir : Indo-Pakistan antagonism: vol. 1 and vol. 2″ www.opinion-maker.com ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/burning-inferno-of-gaza-part-1/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    Burning Inferno of Gaza: Part 1
    Burning Inferno of Gaza by: Asif Haroon Raja Part-1 Background History of Creation of Israel The Christan Zionists had emerged in 1890 and grew in London. In 1905, Arthur James Balfour promulgated the 1905 Aliens Act to stop the immigration to Britain of the Jewish refugees fleeing anti-Semitism in Russia. Theodor Herzl was the founder...
    0 Comments 0 Shares 13306 Views
  • Why did Julian Assange say the greatest foreign threat to America comes from Israel/the Israel lobby?
    Why did the Shah of Iran in the 1960s, state that the Jewish lobby in America does not “advance the interests of either the people of the US, or Israel itself”?
    Who is ultimately responsible for Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power?
    Where was Osama bin-Laden educated?
    How much foreign aid is sent to the nation of Israel each year by Washington DC?
    What are “Israeli Loyalty Oath/Pledge of Allegiance laws” in US states?
    Why is every newly elected US congressperson asked to sign a statement of fealty to Israel?
    What happens to them if they don’t?
    Why is the American Israeli Public Action Commission the largest bipartisan political lobby in the United States?
    Who do they fund?
    Who started Goldman Sachs?
    Who was Bernie Madoff?
    Who is Larry Fink?
    Who is Antony Blinken?
    Who is Klaus Schwab?
    Who is Deborah Birx?

    Who are these people REALLY?

    Questions lead to answers.

    https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordJ ✅️
    Why did Julian Assange say the greatest foreign threat to America comes from Israel/the Israel lobby? Why did the Shah of Iran in the 1960s, state that the Jewish lobby in America does not “advance the interests of either the people of the US, or Israel itself”? Who is ultimately responsible for Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power? Where was Osama bin-Laden educated? How much foreign aid is sent to the nation of Israel each year by Washington DC? What are “Israeli Loyalty Oath/Pledge of Allegiance laws” in US states? Why is every newly elected US congressperson asked to sign a statement of fealty to Israel? What happens to them if they don’t? Why is the American Israeli Public Action Commission the largest bipartisan political lobby in the United States? Who do they fund? Who started Goldman Sachs? Who was Bernie Madoff? Who is Larry Fink? Who is Antony Blinken? Who is Klaus Schwab? Who is Deborah Birx? Who are these people REALLY? Questions lead to answers. https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordJ ✅️
    T.ME
    Benjamin FuIford
    Website: https://benjaminfulford.net/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/BenjaminFuIford
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1307 Views
  • Do You Know What’s in a Vaccine? Chemical Ingredients
    Addendum to the Childhood Vaccination Series


    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    ***

    Over the last few decades, the number of chemicals added to foods and other products has skyrocketed. Chemicals are added to “enhance flavor”, make fruits and vegetables look fresh, extend the shelf life of packaged foods and for other invented reasons. A cornucopia of chemicals are also found in lotions and beauty products with the ostensible reason that these chemicals make beauty products feel, look, and smell nice.

    Along with this increase in heavily processed foods has come increased skepticism about the necessity of inserting chemical additives into everything we touch and taste. A significant and growing segment of the US population are beginning to examine the health consequences of ingesting and absorbing these chemical-laden products.

    This growing awareness about the adverse effects of ingesting and absorbing synthetic ingredients and the public’s understanding of the attendant health benefits of consuming products free from synthetic chemicals has prompted consumers to seek out organic ingredient-based items in their foods and skin lotions.

    More people are showing interest in knowing about the ingredients in their food and striving to ‘eat clean.’ This increased awareness is evidenced in the steady growth of the organic food industry and trends in the natural and organic cosmetic industry where demand is higher than ever.

    This same level of concern has begun to seep into the public conscience regarding a certain medical product that has mostly avoided scrutiny – the vaccine.

    Having been trained to accept that this product is a customary aspect of everyday life, most people haven’t given much thought to what’s inside the vaccine vials. Rarely will the vaccine ritual in the doctor’s office include a discussion about the ingredients which are about to be injected into the patient’s body. It’s highly likely the physicians and nurses themselves don’t know the ingredients of each vaccine.

    So what’s in that vial? What’s coming through that needle?

    A Partial List of Ingredients

    Aluminum: Aluminum salts are used in some vaccine formulations as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to vaccines to ostensibly enhance the immune response. Examples of aluminum salts in some vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) or mixed aluminum salts.

    In a 2011 study Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic stated the following:

    “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”

    Multiple studies have shown that the intramuscularly injected aluminum vaccine adjuvant is absorbed into the systemic circulation and travels to different sites in the body, such as the brain, joints, and the spleen, where it accumulates and is retained for years post-vaccination.

    Mercury (thimerosal): Thimerosal is an ethyl mercury-based preservative used in vials that contain more than one dose of a vaccine (multi-dose vials) to prevent germs, bacteria and/or fungi from contaminating the vaccine. While in decline some flu vaccines and childhood vaccines in multi-dose vials still utilize thimerosal.

    Mercury is known to be a genotoxic agent, even in minute concentrations, which can damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer.

    A meta-analysis epidemiological study suggested thimerosal containing vaccines significantly increased the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders.

    A 2011 study suggested there may be higher rates of blood and brain mercury levels in monkeys exposed to vaccines containing thimerosal.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service (1999) published a joint statement that urged “all government agencies to work rapidly toward reducing children’s exposure to mercury from all sources.”

    Gelatin: Gelatin is used as a stabilizer in some vaccines licensed in the U.S. Stabilizers are added to vaccines to protect the active ingredients from degrading during manufacture, transport and storage.

    Gelatin is a protein obtained from cows or pigs and produced by the partial hydrolysis of collagen extracted by boiling animal parts such as cartilage, tendons, skin, bones and ligaments in water. Some people might have a severe allergic reaction to it.

    Certain vaccine viruses are grown on gelatin derived from the ligaments of pigs fed heavy doses of glyphosate in their feed. Gelatin comes from collagen which has lots of glycine.

    Gelatin is one of the most commonly identified causes of allergic reactions to vaccines.

    A 1999 Japanese study showed most anaphylactic reactions and some urticarial reactions to gelatin-containing measles, mumps, and rubella monovalent vaccines were associated with gelatin allergy. Based on these findings Japan removed gelatin from vaccines in 2000.

    Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde is used during the manufacture of some vaccines to inactivate viruses (like polio and hepatitis A viruses) or bacterial toxins (like diphtheria and tetanus toxins).

    Formaldehyde is a human carcinogen based on evidence from cancer studies in humans and is listed as aknown to be human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Twelfth Report on Carcinogens(2011).

    Phenol/Phenoxyethanol: Phenoxyethanol is used in vaccines and biologics as a preservative to prevent microbial growth.

    A 2010 study, The relative toxicity of compounds used as preservatives in vaccines and biologics, assessed the relative cytotoxicity of the levels of the compounds commonly used as preservative in US licensed vaccines and found that for phenoxyethanol it was 4.6-fold, for phenol 12.2-fold and for Thimerosal >330-fold.

    They concluded, “None of the compounds commonly used as preservatives in US licensed vaccine/biological preparations can be considered an ideal preservative, and their ability to fully comply with the requirements of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for preservatives is in doubt.”

    Case reports (here, here and here) have suggested a link between phenoxyethanol and urticaria (hives), eczema and anaphylaxis.

    Triton X-100: Triton X –100 or octylphenol ethoxylate (OPE) is a surfactant (reducing the surface tension of liquids) and stabilizer present in some influenza vaccines.

    OPEs are endocrine disruptors and break down relatively easily into Octylphenols (OPs), which are more harmful. Endocrine disruptors can alter reproductive function, increase incidences of breast cancer, affect growth patterns and neurodevelopment in children and change immune function.

    Squalene: Squalene is a naturally-occurring substance derived primarily from shark liver oil. When combined with other ingredients it becomes an adjuvant, which, like aluminum, is added to vaccines to elicit a stronger immune response from the body.

    A 2000 study demonstrated that one intradermal injection of squalene adjuvant produced arthritis in rats.

    Some believe that Gulf War Syndrome was linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of the anthrax vaccine.

    Beta-propiolactone: Beta-propiolactone (BPL) is a commonly used reagent for the inactivation of viruses for use in vaccine preparations. It has recently been used in the development of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine preparation.

    Beta-propiolactone is a known carcinogen. Local sarcomas have been produced by subcutaneous injection of beta-propiolactone in rats. In the laboratory sarcomas and squamous papillomas in mice were produced by a single subcutaneous injection of a minute amount of beta-propiolactone.

    Polysorbate 80: Polysorbate 80 is present in some vaccines to stop the vaccine from separating into its component parts. In a PubMed study Polysorbate 80 was described as, “a ubiquitously used solubilizing agent that can cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions.”

    In a pharmacological study on mice and rats Polysorbate 80 produced, “mild to moderate depression of the central nervous system with a marked reduction in locomotor activity and rectal temperature, exhibited ataxia and paralytic activity and potentiated the pentobarbital sleeping time.”

    The results of that study concluded, “The results of the present study indicate that polysorbate 80 can neither be used as a solvent for isolated tissue experiments nor when considered for intravenous administration.”

    Another study from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) suggested the dietary emulsifier polysorbate 80 may induce low-grade inflammation which may contribute to metabolic diseases and increase the potential for development in colon cancer.

    Genetically modified yeast: S. cerevisiae, a species of yeast, is used in vaccines in a variety of ways. It is used as an adjuvant and now through genetic manipulation it is being used to create artificial antibodies

    Studies have suggested that genetically engineered yeast used in vaccines may be a contributing factor to autoimmune disorders.

    Monosodium Glutamate (MSG): Monosodium Glutamate is used in small amounts in some vaccines to keep them stable and protect them from losing potency even when exposed to heat and light.

    In a study that looked at rat fertility and MSG consumption the authors found there was a negative impact on the rats’ fertility.

    In another study it was noted that chronic MSG intake caused kidney dysfunction and renal oxidative stress in the animal model.

    Cells From Aborted Fetus: Fetal cell lines are used to grow viruses which are then collected from the cell cultures and processed further to produce the vaccine itself.

    The cell lines are propagated from lung tissue of mature aborted and used in the current manufacture of a number of routine vaccines, including measles, mumps and rubella (MMRV), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio, (DTaP-IPV), Hepatitis A and chickenpox.

    Aborted fetal cells are listed on vaccine package inserts as “Human Fetal Diploid Cells.” Two aborted fetal cell lines, WI-38 and MRC-5, have been grown under laboratory conditions since the 1960s. Diploid cells (WI-38, MRC-5) vaccines have their origin in induced abortions.

    The use of such cell lines can be profoundly objectionable to segments of the population who hold certain religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

    The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization Corvelva released a study in 2019 regarding the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines.

    In their summary they highlighted the following:

    The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.
    560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.
    There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.
    What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.
    Serum From Aborted Calf Fetus Blood: The purpose for the fetal bovine serum is to provide a nutrient broth for viruses to grow in cells.

    Humane Research Australia describes the process of how the blood is collected, “The blood is collected after the slaughter of a mature female cow, the mother’s uterus containing the calf fetus is removed during the evisceration process and transferred to the blood collection room. A needle is then inserted between the fetus’s ribs directly into its heart and the blood is vacuumed into a sterile collection bag.

    Only fetuses over the age of three months are used otherwise the heart is considered too small to puncture. Once collected, the blood is allowed to clot at room temperature and the serum separated through a process known as refrigerated centrifugation.”

    Beyond certain ethical considerations scientists have found that different bovine tissues contain different amounts of the BSE agent.

    Antibiotics: Antibiotics are used during the manufacturing process of some vaccines to stop bacteria growing and contaminating the vaccine.

    Antibiotics found in some vaccines include neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin b, gentamicin and kanamycin.

    Polymyxin B comes with a warning that, “This medicine has not been fully studied in pregnant women. This medicine may cause kidney problems. This medicine may cause nerve problems”, as well as a laundry list of side effects.

    Similar warnings are found with streptomycin, neomycin, gentamicin, and kanamycin.

    A study out of Finland raised concerns about excessive antibiotic use in early childhood which may lead to weight gain and altered gut bacteria.

    What Else Could be in That Needle?

    The list above is not a complete account of all the ingredients found in various vaccine cocktails. A comprehensive manufacturers’ catalog of ingredients can be found here, here and here.

    The reality is that even a complete list issued by the producer doesn’t tell the entire story of what is found in vaccines.

    Using an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe a group of Italian scientists examined 44 samples of 30 different vaccines and found dangerous contaminants, including metal toxicants in 43 of the 44 samples tested.

    In the study, published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, the researchers detected lead, chromium, nickel and other metals in every adjuvant sample tested.

    Additional metal contaminants identified in 25 of the human vaccines included platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium. Foreign impurities such as zirconium, hafnium, strontium, tungsten, antimony, bismuth, cerium and were also detected in many of the vaccines tested.

    The researchers commenting on their unexpected findings reported:

    The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring….In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants. [Emphasis added]

    When interviewed lead scientist Dr. Antonietta Gatti, of the National Council of Research of Italy and Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics, explained that the discovery of vaccine impurities shocked the researchers:

    Those particles should not have been there. We had never questioned the purity of vaccines before. In fact, for us the problem did not even exist. All injectable solutions had to be perfectly pure and that was an act of faith on which it seemed impossible to have doubts. For that reason, we repeated our analyses several times to be certain. In the end, we accepted the evidence.

    Speculating on the potential consequences of these foreign impurities Dr. Gatti stated:

    The particles, be they isolated, aggregated or clustered, are not supposed to be there… Our tissues perceive these foreign bodies as potential enemies…Unfortunately, though, the particles we found in vaccines, are not biodegradable. So, all the macrophages’ efforts will be useless, and depending on the exact chemicals involved, the particles may be especially toxic. Cytokines and pro-inflammatory substances in general are released and granulated tissue forms, enveloping the particles. This provokes inflammation which, in the long run, if locally persistent, is known to be a precursor to cancer.

    Along with unlisted metal contaminants another unlisted contaminant was noted in some vaccines when a preliminary screening result from Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. detected glyphosate in the childhood vaccines they tested.

    Merck’s MMR II vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate, Sanofi Pasteur’s DTap Adacel vaccine had 0.123 ppb, Novartis’ Influenza Fluvirin had 0.331 ppb, Glaxo Smith Kline’s HepB Energix-B vaccine had 0.325 ppb, Merck’s Pneumococcal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate.

    These findings prompted Moms Across America to send a letter to the FDA, CDC, EPA,NIH and California Department of Health requesting that they test vaccines for glyphosate and recall contaminated vaccines.

    MIT scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff remarked on the route by which glyphosate could get into vaccines:

    Collagen is a protein found in large amounts in the ligaments of cows, and these ligaments are often used in the production of gelatin. The MMR vaccine and flu vaccine viruses are grown as live cultures on gelatin sourced from cows fed high concentrations of glyphosate in their GMO Roundup­Ready feed.

    What to Do?

    Given the complex nature of the composition of vaccines and the paucity of information volunteered to the public on the manufacturing processes and ingredients that go into these products, how does one go about navigating this subject?

    Conventional wisdom might suggest, “Ask your doctor.” But how independent are these doctors?

    Where do you turn when you discover physicians and pediatricians, who have a legal duty to fully inform patients about vaccine risks and side effects, have ideological and material incentives to avoid presenting specific information that might cause a parent to question a vaccine?

    What about educational materials and advice from the agencies tasked with protecting public health? Can we trust the FDA and the CDC to provide detailed and unbiased information when it is known that they get substantial amounts of money from vaccine manufacturers?

    Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care.This includes being given a thorough account of the risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient’s role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment.

    Informed and individualized health care decisions about any product one puts into their or their children’s body starts with being fully informed with what is in that product.

    *

    Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    This article was originally published on Health Freedom Defense Fund.

    Featured image is from HFDF



    https://www.globalresearch.ca/do-you-know-what-vaccine/5839377
    Do You Know What’s in a Vaccine? Chemical Ingredients Addendum to the Childhood Vaccination Series All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name. To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. *** Over the last few decades, the number of chemicals added to foods and other products has skyrocketed. Chemicals are added to “enhance flavor”, make fruits and vegetables look fresh, extend the shelf life of packaged foods and for other invented reasons. A cornucopia of chemicals are also found in lotions and beauty products with the ostensible reason that these chemicals make beauty products feel, look, and smell nice. Along with this increase in heavily processed foods has come increased skepticism about the necessity of inserting chemical additives into everything we touch and taste. A significant and growing segment of the US population are beginning to examine the health consequences of ingesting and absorbing these chemical-laden products. This growing awareness about the adverse effects of ingesting and absorbing synthetic ingredients and the public’s understanding of the attendant health benefits of consuming products free from synthetic chemicals has prompted consumers to seek out organic ingredient-based items in their foods and skin lotions. More people are showing interest in knowing about the ingredients in their food and striving to ‘eat clean.’ This increased awareness is evidenced in the steady growth of the organic food industry and trends in the natural and organic cosmetic industry where demand is higher than ever. This same level of concern has begun to seep into the public conscience regarding a certain medical product that has mostly avoided scrutiny – the vaccine. Having been trained to accept that this product is a customary aspect of everyday life, most people haven’t given much thought to what’s inside the vaccine vials. Rarely will the vaccine ritual in the doctor’s office include a discussion about the ingredients which are about to be injected into the patient’s body. It’s highly likely the physicians and nurses themselves don’t know the ingredients of each vaccine. So what’s in that vial? What’s coming through that needle? A Partial List of Ingredients Aluminum: Aluminum salts are used in some vaccine formulations as an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a substance added to vaccines to ostensibly enhance the immune response. Examples of aluminum salts in some vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate) or mixed aluminum salts. In a 2011 study Canadian scientists Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic stated the following: “Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” Multiple studies have shown that the intramuscularly injected aluminum vaccine adjuvant is absorbed into the systemic circulation and travels to different sites in the body, such as the brain, joints, and the spleen, where it accumulates and is retained for years post-vaccination. Mercury (thimerosal): Thimerosal is an ethyl mercury-based preservative used in vials that contain more than one dose of a vaccine (multi-dose vials) to prevent germs, bacteria and/or fungi from contaminating the vaccine. While in decline some flu vaccines and childhood vaccines in multi-dose vials still utilize thimerosal. Mercury is known to be a genotoxic agent, even in minute concentrations, which can damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer. A meta-analysis epidemiological study suggested thimerosal containing vaccines significantly increased the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. A 2011 study suggested there may be higher rates of blood and brain mercury levels in monkeys exposed to vaccines containing thimerosal. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service (1999) published a joint statement that urged “all government agencies to work rapidly toward reducing children’s exposure to mercury from all sources.” Gelatin: Gelatin is used as a stabilizer in some vaccines licensed in the U.S. Stabilizers are added to vaccines to protect the active ingredients from degrading during manufacture, transport and storage. Gelatin is a protein obtained from cows or pigs and produced by the partial hydrolysis of collagen extracted by boiling animal parts such as cartilage, tendons, skin, bones and ligaments in water. Some people might have a severe allergic reaction to it. Certain vaccine viruses are grown on gelatin derived from the ligaments of pigs fed heavy doses of glyphosate in their feed. Gelatin comes from collagen which has lots of glycine. Gelatin is one of the most commonly identified causes of allergic reactions to vaccines. A 1999 Japanese study showed most anaphylactic reactions and some urticarial reactions to gelatin-containing measles, mumps, and rubella monovalent vaccines were associated with gelatin allergy. Based on these findings Japan removed gelatin from vaccines in 2000. Formaldehyde: Formaldehyde is used during the manufacture of some vaccines to inactivate viruses (like polio and hepatitis A viruses) or bacterial toxins (like diphtheria and tetanus toxins). Formaldehyde is a human carcinogen based on evidence from cancer studies in humans and is listed as aknown to be human carcinogen in the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Twelfth Report on Carcinogens(2011). Phenol/Phenoxyethanol: Phenoxyethanol is used in vaccines and biologics as a preservative to prevent microbial growth. A 2010 study, The relative toxicity of compounds used as preservatives in vaccines and biologics, assessed the relative cytotoxicity of the levels of the compounds commonly used as preservative in US licensed vaccines and found that for phenoxyethanol it was 4.6-fold, for phenol 12.2-fold and for Thimerosal >330-fold. They concluded, “None of the compounds commonly used as preservatives in US licensed vaccine/biological preparations can be considered an ideal preservative, and their ability to fully comply with the requirements of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for preservatives is in doubt.” Case reports (here, here and here) have suggested a link between phenoxyethanol and urticaria (hives), eczema and anaphylaxis. Triton X-100: Triton X –100 or octylphenol ethoxylate (OPE) is a surfactant (reducing the surface tension of liquids) and stabilizer present in some influenza vaccines. OPEs are endocrine disruptors and break down relatively easily into Octylphenols (OPs), which are more harmful. Endocrine disruptors can alter reproductive function, increase incidences of breast cancer, affect growth patterns and neurodevelopment in children and change immune function. Squalene: Squalene is a naturally-occurring substance derived primarily from shark liver oil. When combined with other ingredients it becomes an adjuvant, which, like aluminum, is added to vaccines to elicit a stronger immune response from the body. A 2000 study demonstrated that one intradermal injection of squalene adjuvant produced arthritis in rats. Some believe that Gulf War Syndrome was linked to the presence of squalene in certain lots of the anthrax vaccine. Beta-propiolactone: Beta-propiolactone (BPL) is a commonly used reagent for the inactivation of viruses for use in vaccine preparations. It has recently been used in the development of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine preparation. Beta-propiolactone is a known carcinogen. Local sarcomas have been produced by subcutaneous injection of beta-propiolactone in rats. In the laboratory sarcomas and squamous papillomas in mice were produced by a single subcutaneous injection of a minute amount of beta-propiolactone. Polysorbate 80: Polysorbate 80 is present in some vaccines to stop the vaccine from separating into its component parts. In a PubMed study Polysorbate 80 was described as, “a ubiquitously used solubilizing agent that can cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions.” In a pharmacological study on mice and rats Polysorbate 80 produced, “mild to moderate depression of the central nervous system with a marked reduction in locomotor activity and rectal temperature, exhibited ataxia and paralytic activity and potentiated the pentobarbital sleeping time.” The results of that study concluded, “The results of the present study indicate that polysorbate 80 can neither be used as a solvent for isolated tissue experiments nor when considered for intravenous administration.” Another study from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) suggested the dietary emulsifier polysorbate 80 may induce low-grade inflammation which may contribute to metabolic diseases and increase the potential for development in colon cancer. Genetically modified yeast: S. cerevisiae, a species of yeast, is used in vaccines in a variety of ways. It is used as an adjuvant and now through genetic manipulation it is being used to create artificial antibodies Studies have suggested that genetically engineered yeast used in vaccines may be a contributing factor to autoimmune disorders. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG): Monosodium Glutamate is used in small amounts in some vaccines to keep them stable and protect them from losing potency even when exposed to heat and light. In a study that looked at rat fertility and MSG consumption the authors found there was a negative impact on the rats’ fertility. In another study it was noted that chronic MSG intake caused kidney dysfunction and renal oxidative stress in the animal model. Cells From Aborted Fetus: Fetal cell lines are used to grow viruses which are then collected from the cell cultures and processed further to produce the vaccine itself. The cell lines are propagated from lung tissue of mature aborted and used in the current manufacture of a number of routine vaccines, including measles, mumps and rubella (MMRV), diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio, (DTaP-IPV), Hepatitis A and chickenpox. Aborted fetal cells are listed on vaccine package inserts as “Human Fetal Diploid Cells.” Two aborted fetal cell lines, WI-38 and MRC-5, have been grown under laboratory conditions since the 1960s. Diploid cells (WI-38, MRC-5) vaccines have their origin in induced abortions. The use of such cell lines can be profoundly objectionable to segments of the population who hold certain religious and/or philosophical beliefs. The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization Corvelva released a study in 2019 regarding the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines. In their summary they highlighted the following: The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual. 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications. There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer. What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants. Serum From Aborted Calf Fetus Blood: The purpose for the fetal bovine serum is to provide a nutrient broth for viruses to grow in cells. Humane Research Australia describes the process of how the blood is collected, “The blood is collected after the slaughter of a mature female cow, the mother’s uterus containing the calf fetus is removed during the evisceration process and transferred to the blood collection room. A needle is then inserted between the fetus’s ribs directly into its heart and the blood is vacuumed into a sterile collection bag. Only fetuses over the age of three months are used otherwise the heart is considered too small to puncture. Once collected, the blood is allowed to clot at room temperature and the serum separated through a process known as refrigerated centrifugation.” Beyond certain ethical considerations scientists have found that different bovine tissues contain different amounts of the BSE agent. Antibiotics: Antibiotics are used during the manufacturing process of some vaccines to stop bacteria growing and contaminating the vaccine. Antibiotics found in some vaccines include neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin b, gentamicin and kanamycin. Polymyxin B comes with a warning that, “This medicine has not been fully studied in pregnant women. This medicine may cause kidney problems. This medicine may cause nerve problems”, as well as a laundry list of side effects. Similar warnings are found with streptomycin, neomycin, gentamicin, and kanamycin. A study out of Finland raised concerns about excessive antibiotic use in early childhood which may lead to weight gain and altered gut bacteria. What Else Could be in That Needle? The list above is not a complete account of all the ingredients found in various vaccine cocktails. A comprehensive manufacturers’ catalog of ingredients can be found here, here and here. The reality is that even a complete list issued by the producer doesn’t tell the entire story of what is found in vaccines. Using an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe a group of Italian scientists examined 44 samples of 30 different vaccines and found dangerous contaminants, including metal toxicants in 43 of the 44 samples tested. In the study, published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, the researchers detected lead, chromium, nickel and other metals in every adjuvant sample tested. Additional metal contaminants identified in 25 of the human vaccines included platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, and chromium. Foreign impurities such as zirconium, hafnium, strontium, tungsten, antimony, bismuth, cerium and were also detected in many of the vaccines tested. The researchers commenting on their unexpected findings reported: The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring….In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants. [Emphasis added] When interviewed lead scientist Dr. Antonietta Gatti, of the National Council of Research of Italy and Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics, explained that the discovery of vaccine impurities shocked the researchers: Those particles should not have been there. We had never questioned the purity of vaccines before. In fact, for us the problem did not even exist. All injectable solutions had to be perfectly pure and that was an act of faith on which it seemed impossible to have doubts. For that reason, we repeated our analyses several times to be certain. In the end, we accepted the evidence. Speculating on the potential consequences of these foreign impurities Dr. Gatti stated: The particles, be they isolated, aggregated or clustered, are not supposed to be there… Our tissues perceive these foreign bodies as potential enemies…Unfortunately, though, the particles we found in vaccines, are not biodegradable. So, all the macrophages’ efforts will be useless, and depending on the exact chemicals involved, the particles may be especially toxic. Cytokines and pro-inflammatory substances in general are released and granulated tissue forms, enveloping the particles. This provokes inflammation which, in the long run, if locally persistent, is known to be a precursor to cancer. Along with unlisted metal contaminants another unlisted contaminant was noted in some vaccines when a preliminary screening result from Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. detected glyphosate in the childhood vaccines they tested. Merck’s MMR II vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate, Sanofi Pasteur’s DTap Adacel vaccine had 0.123 ppb, Novartis’ Influenza Fluvirin had 0.331 ppb, Glaxo Smith Kline’s HepB Energix-B vaccine had 0.325 ppb, Merck’s Pneumococcal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate. These findings prompted Moms Across America to send a letter to the FDA, CDC, EPA,NIH and California Department of Health requesting that they test vaccines for glyphosate and recall contaminated vaccines. MIT scientist Dr. Stephanie Seneff remarked on the route by which glyphosate could get into vaccines: Collagen is a protein found in large amounts in the ligaments of cows, and these ligaments are often used in the production of gelatin. The MMR vaccine and flu vaccine viruses are grown as live cultures on gelatin sourced from cows fed high concentrations of glyphosate in their GMO Roundup­Ready feed. What to Do? Given the complex nature of the composition of vaccines and the paucity of information volunteered to the public on the manufacturing processes and ingredients that go into these products, how does one go about navigating this subject? Conventional wisdom might suggest, “Ask your doctor.” But how independent are these doctors? Where do you turn when you discover physicians and pediatricians, who have a legal duty to fully inform patients about vaccine risks and side effects, have ideological and material incentives to avoid presenting specific information that might cause a parent to question a vaccine? What about educational materials and advice from the agencies tasked with protecting public health? Can we trust the FDA and the CDC to provide detailed and unbiased information when it is known that they get substantial amounts of money from vaccine manufacturers? Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care.This includes being given a thorough account of the risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient’s role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. Informed and individualized health care decisions about any product one puts into their or their children’s body starts with being fully informed with what is in that product. * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. This article was originally published on Health Freedom Defense Fund. Featured image is from HFDF https://www.globalresearch.ca/do-you-know-what-vaccine/5839377
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    Do You Know What’s in a Vaccine? Chemical Ingredients
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name. To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share …
    0 Comments 0 Shares 20654 Views
  • GOD'S FAVOR

    https://ispringmedia.blogspot.com/2023/11/gods-favor.html
    #10inchbbc #1619project #11pmisthenew3am #1620project #1776commission #18yohornyslut2018 #1960s #1970s #1980smovies #1975lindalewis #1a #1happyhotwife #1980s #1minuteprayer #1muniteprayer #1sexyhotgf #1sexyhotwife #1sexywife #1stdegree #1weekholidays #2000mules #2000mulesdocumentary #2000mulesmovie #2000mulesthemovie #2017_bombing #2020_riots #2020to2024electioninterference #2021war #1funcouple #1minute
    GOD'S FAVOR https://ispringmedia.blogspot.com/2023/11/gods-favor.html #10inchbbc #1619project #11pmisthenew3am #1620project #1776commission #18yohornyslut2018 #1960s #1970s #1980smovies #1975lindalewis #1a #1happyhotwife #1980s #1minuteprayer #1muniteprayer #1sexyhotgf #1sexyhotwife #1sexywife #1stdegree #1weekholidays #2000mules #2000mulesdocumentary #2000mulesmovie #2000mulesthemovie #2017_bombing #2020_riots #2020to2024electioninterference #2021war #1funcouple #1minute
    ISPRINGMEDIA.BLOGSPOT.COM
    God’s favor
    Start your day with a biblical perspective you can carry with you no matter what lies ahead. Receive practical application for life.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8877 Views
  • The Drunk Basket

    •Bars in 1960s Turkey used to hire workers to carry "too drunk" people back home

    •These people were called küfeci and
    To be so drunk you couldn’t walk was called küfe.

    •Many bars in Turkey would often employ basket men whose sole purpose was to take patrons home when they were too drunk to stand up.

    •Most of these men would work as porters during the day and then would work as basket men at night to earn some extra money.⁣
    The Drunk Basket •Bars in 1960s Turkey used to hire workers to carry "too drunk" people back home •These people were called küfeci and To be so drunk you couldn’t walk was called küfe. •Many bars in Turkey would often employ basket men whose sole purpose was to take patrons home when they were too drunk to stand up. •Most of these men would work as porters during the day and then would work as basket men at night to earn some extra money.⁣
    Like
    Love
    23
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1476 Views
  • Since 1960s, students at the Nippon Sport Science University in Japan have practiced ‘Shuudan koudou', a group exercise requiring the participants to create various intersecting formations synchronized.

    Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afpc_EcohcY
    Since 1960s, students at the Nippon Sport Science University in Japan have practiced ‘Shuudan koudou', a group exercise requiring the participants to create various intersecting formations synchronized. Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afpc_EcohcY
    Like
    10
    1 Comments 0 Shares 793 Views 7
  • “Mermaids” at Disneyland waving to guests on a submarine ride, 1960s. The ride was called "2000 leagues under the sea". More vintage photos from Disneyland: https://bit.ly/3dYWmGK
    “Mermaids” at Disneyland waving to guests on a submarine ride, 1960s. The ride was called "2000 leagues under the sea". More vintage photos from Disneyland: https://bit.ly/3dYWmGK
    Like
    6
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2261 Views
  • To the Americans praising the Queen's life. You are praising royalty that has robbed Great Britain's countless generations of wealth in moiety with impunity and the worst part is it was with consent. All of this wealth garnered through colonialism and slavery to add onto it. Queen Elizabeth II even hid some of the wealth off shore in various tax haven bank accounts as exposed by the Paradise Papers. A commoner crime also known as &quot;money laundering.&quot; Oh and she was racist constantly making racist remarks while King Phillip did the same, according to various accusations over the years and a clip below where she calls an ambassador to the UK a &quot;gorilla.&quot; If that's not enough she even saluted Adolf Hitler as a young girl when her parents met him.
    Yeah, you know the guy who wanted to genocide Jewish people, gypsies, menally handicapped individuals and anyone who wasn't blonde haired blue eyed with white skin. Fun fact, the Royal family is German and only changed its name to the House of Windsor from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during World War I.
    Much like most reality TV show stars and several celebs Queen Elizabeth II had a public and private image. Meanwhile, Americans are so detatched from what's goiing on in the UK. Just like the UK left the EU, majority of Brits want to do away with royalty. Oh and it's no wonder as they realize paying taxes so royalty can live happy while the rest suffer is a massive scam with no one to blame but themselves. People are waking up to the wrongs that have been written on them with their entire consent. Kind of like us Americans paying the IRS more than we spend on FOOD and necessicities like medical insurance and living expenses. It's all a scam and it's about time for change and an uprising calling out it all. Occupy was great but we need a real revolution that ushers in a fairer society without rich elitist kings and queens hoarding all of a countries' wealth.
    &quot;It doesn't stop until you get off your knees and stand up.&quot; ~Immoral Technique.
    Here is why the Queen wants this banned:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhQygzcw9eY&amp;amp;amp;t=29s
    EndRoyalty
    RestInPiecesMonarchy
    Sources:
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal
    https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/americans-spent-more-taxes-2021-food-clothing-and-health-care
    https://www.france24.com/en/20150718-queen-elizabeth-ii-UK-seen-giving-nazi-hitler-salute-childhood-film-the-sun
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/revealed-queen-private-estate-invested-offshore-paradise-papers
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal
    https://archive.ph/yDCMh
    https://archive.ph/nSv7T
    https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/buckingham-palace-racist-1960s-hiring-policy-scandal
    https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/03/08/sex-death-and-racism-britains-royal-scandals-.html
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/06/02/queen-buckingham-palace-face-new-racism-scandal-after-harry-meghan/7513379002/
    https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/uk/queen-racist-employment-policy-intl-cmd-gbr-analysis/index.html
    https://nypost.com/2005/01/13/royal-nazi-prince-harry-in-swastika-shock/
    https://nypost.com/1999/08/11/new-philip-flap-over-flip-remark/
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/10/queen-death-colonies-atrocities-british-empire
    https://www.newsweek.com/people-refusing-mourn-queen-elizabeths-death-why-1741462
    To the Americans praising the Queen's life. You are praising royalty that has robbed Great Britain's countless generations of wealth in moiety with impunity and the worst part is it was with consent. All of this wealth garnered through colonialism and slavery to add onto it. Queen Elizabeth II even hid some of the wealth off shore in various tax haven bank accounts as exposed by the Paradise Papers. A commoner crime also known as &quot;money laundering.&quot; Oh and she was racist constantly making racist remarks while King Phillip did the same, according to various accusations over the years and a clip below where she calls an ambassador to the UK a &quot;gorilla.&quot; If that's not enough she even saluted Adolf Hitler as a young girl when her parents met him. Yeah, you know the guy who wanted to genocide Jewish people, gypsies, menally handicapped individuals and anyone who wasn't blonde haired blue eyed with white skin. Fun fact, the Royal family is German and only changed its name to the House of Windsor from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during World War I. Much like most reality TV show stars and several celebs Queen Elizabeth II had a public and private image. Meanwhile, Americans are so detatched from what's goiing on in the UK. Just like the UK left the EU, majority of Brits want to do away with royalty. Oh and it's no wonder as they realize paying taxes so royalty can live happy while the rest suffer is a massive scam with no one to blame but themselves. People are waking up to the wrongs that have been written on them with their entire consent. Kind of like us Americans paying the IRS more than we spend on FOOD and necessicities like medical insurance and living expenses. It's all a scam and it's about time for change and an uprising calling out it all. Occupy was great but we need a real revolution that ushers in a fairer society without rich elitist kings and queens hoarding all of a countries' wealth. &quot;It doesn't stop until you get off your knees and stand up.&quot; ~Immoral Technique. Here is why the Queen wants this banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhQygzcw9eY&amp;amp;amp;t=29s EndRoyalty RestInPiecesMonarchy Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/terence-p-jeffrey/americans-spent-more-taxes-2021-food-clothing-and-health-care https://www.france24.com/en/20150718-queen-elizabeth-ii-UK-seen-giving-nazi-hitler-salute-childhood-film-the-sun https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/05/revealed-queen-private-estate-invested-offshore-paradise-papers https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://archive.ph/yDCMh https://archive.ph/nSv7T https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2021/06/buckingham-palace-racist-1960s-hiring-policy-scandal https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2021/03/08/sex-death-and-racism-britains-royal-scandals-.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2021/06/02/queen-buckingham-palace-face-new-racism-scandal-after-harry-meghan/7513379002/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/03/uk/queen-racist-employment-policy-intl-cmd-gbr-analysis/index.html https://nypost.com/2005/01/13/royal-nazi-prince-harry-in-swastika-shock/ https://nypost.com/1999/08/11/new-philip-flap-over-flip-remark/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/10/queen-death-colonies-atrocities-british-empire https://www.newsweek.com/people-refusing-mourn-queen-elizabeths-death-why-1741462
    Like
    Love
    2
    1 Comments 0 Shares 3082 Views