• AltSignals: Unravelling AI token future as Bitcoin and Nvidia correlation grows

    AltSignals has attracted investors with its AI application and earnings opportunities.
    A strong correlation between Bitcoin and NVIDIA has highlighted the influence of AI on crypto.
    $ASI token has 50x and more potential as the future of AI trading unravels.
    As Bitcoin (BTC) hit a record above $73,000, analysts have been keen on its relationship with AI stock Nvidia. This is after both assets hit record highs, helped by their respective fundamentals and sector optimism. This happens amid a robust correction that is now the strongest in over a year. Meanwhile, AltSignals, an AI token, has been making strides, riding the rapidly growing crypto and AI sector. Listings at Uniswap and CoinGecko have cemented the token’s future as BTC and Nvidia’s correlation unfolds.

    Bitcoin’s correlation with Nvidia grows to the strongest
    The correlation between Bitcoin and Nvidia has been of interest as long as the two asset prices move in tandem. Both assets have cooled off slightly after hitting their respective all-time highs. What has been remarkable is that the 90-day and 52-week correlation between the two assets has crossed 0.80.

    The strong correlation suggests that Bitcoin and Nvidia move in a similar fashion. Conversely, while Bitcoin price is up more than 60% YTD, Nvidia has gained over 78%. A surging interest in AI has been responsible for the gains in Nvidia stock.

    Nonetheless, the twist of events, BTC and NVDA correlation, has brought about the “AI narrative” in crypto. This has seen many AI-linked cryptocurrencies surge in value, boosting the entire sector’s market cap. Cryptocurrencies that saw significant pumps included WorldCoin (WLD), Render (RNDR) and Fetch. Ai (FET). These gains started after Nvidia issued its Q4 results and guidance, which excited the markets.

    As the excitement builds, AltSignals has been keenly watched by investors looking for opportunities in AI. Attention now turns to how AltSignals navigates its core mission in 2024 amid growing optimism.

    AltSignals: An AI token revolutionising the trading world
    AltSignals has gained popularity owing to being a key pillar in the trading world. Unlike its AI predecessors, this token powers a community of traders.

    Launched in 2017, AltSignals has been offering quality trading signals with more than 64% success rates. This has seen the platform amass a huge following, boasting over 50,000 members on Telegram. AltSignals covers various financial instruments such as stocks, forex, CFDs, and cryptocurrencies. The signal service has seen huge success in trading assets such as Binance Futures and Binance Spot assets.

    In anticipation of the future of AI trading, AltSignals launched an AI-enabled trading service, ActualizeAI. The signal service will be powered by the cryptocurrency, $ASI. The team has fast-tracked the development of the AI platform since its highly-subscribed presale. With AI, AltSignals expects to increase the quality of its signals, increasing the profitability for its members.

    AltSignals has remained steadfast as expectations build. Big launches in 2024 cement the token’s future amid the AI frenzy. Expected this year include an NFT marketplace and new partnerships to foster growth. Ultimately, the actualisation of the AI project will fuel the demand for $ASI and its price.

    Is AltSignals a good investment?
    AltSignals is an investment opportunity that gives token holders access to quality trading signals. This allows investors to earn by participating in the global financial market and learning from the experts.

    Besides, regular investment products have generated a frenzy within the AltSignals community. For example, its staking program saw more than 28.9 million tokens grabbed from 30 million tokens offered. Investors were attracted to up to 25% returns for staking the token for just three months. Consequently, FOMO has been building from the platform’s passive income opportunities.

    $ASI investors are also attracted to the token’s potential, with analysts believing in its AI mission. As the popularity of AI grows, $ASI will increase in value, generating returns to its backers. Consequently, the token has been earmarked with a potential 50x gain.
    AltSignals: Unravelling AI token future as Bitcoin and Nvidia correlation grows AltSignals has attracted investors with its AI application and earnings opportunities. A strong correlation between Bitcoin and NVIDIA has highlighted the influence of AI on crypto. $ASI token has 50x and more potential as the future of AI trading unravels. As Bitcoin (BTC) hit a record above $73,000, analysts have been keen on its relationship with AI stock Nvidia. This is after both assets hit record highs, helped by their respective fundamentals and sector optimism. This happens amid a robust correction that is now the strongest in over a year. Meanwhile, AltSignals, an AI token, has been making strides, riding the rapidly growing crypto and AI sector. Listings at Uniswap and CoinGecko have cemented the token’s future as BTC and Nvidia’s correlation unfolds. Bitcoin’s correlation with Nvidia grows to the strongest The correlation between Bitcoin and Nvidia has been of interest as long as the two asset prices move in tandem. Both assets have cooled off slightly after hitting their respective all-time highs. What has been remarkable is that the 90-day and 52-week correlation between the two assets has crossed 0.80. The strong correlation suggests that Bitcoin and Nvidia move in a similar fashion. Conversely, while Bitcoin price is up more than 60% YTD, Nvidia has gained over 78%. A surging interest in AI has been responsible for the gains in Nvidia stock. Nonetheless, the twist of events, BTC and NVDA correlation, has brought about the “AI narrative” in crypto. This has seen many AI-linked cryptocurrencies surge in value, boosting the entire sector’s market cap. Cryptocurrencies that saw significant pumps included WorldCoin (WLD), Render (RNDR) and Fetch. Ai (FET). These gains started after Nvidia issued its Q4 results and guidance, which excited the markets. As the excitement builds, AltSignals has been keenly watched by investors looking for opportunities in AI. Attention now turns to how AltSignals navigates its core mission in 2024 amid growing optimism. AltSignals: An AI token revolutionising the trading world AltSignals has gained popularity owing to being a key pillar in the trading world. Unlike its AI predecessors, this token powers a community of traders. Launched in 2017, AltSignals has been offering quality trading signals with more than 64% success rates. This has seen the platform amass a huge following, boasting over 50,000 members on Telegram. AltSignals covers various financial instruments such as stocks, forex, CFDs, and cryptocurrencies. The signal service has seen huge success in trading assets such as Binance Futures and Binance Spot assets. In anticipation of the future of AI trading, AltSignals launched an AI-enabled trading service, ActualizeAI. The signal service will be powered by the cryptocurrency, $ASI. The team has fast-tracked the development of the AI platform since its highly-subscribed presale. With AI, AltSignals expects to increase the quality of its signals, increasing the profitability for its members. AltSignals has remained steadfast as expectations build. Big launches in 2024 cement the token’s future amid the AI frenzy. Expected this year include an NFT marketplace and new partnerships to foster growth. Ultimately, the actualisation of the AI project will fuel the demand for $ASI and its price. Is AltSignals a good investment? AltSignals is an investment opportunity that gives token holders access to quality trading signals. This allows investors to earn by participating in the global financial market and learning from the experts. Besides, regular investment products have generated a frenzy within the AltSignals community. For example, its staking program saw more than 28.9 million tokens grabbed from 30 million tokens offered. Investors were attracted to up to 25% returns for staking the token for just three months. Consequently, FOMO has been building from the platform’s passive income opportunities. $ASI investors are also attracted to the token’s potential, with analysts believing in its AI mission. As the popularity of AI grows, $ASI will increase in value, generating returns to its backers. Consequently, the token has been earmarked with a potential 50x gain.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 2286 Ansichten
  • Harvard University Drops COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

    🇺🇸💉The Harvard University Health Services confirmed this week that the school will no longer require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

    "We strongly recommend that all members of the Harvard community stay up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters if eligible," reads a notice on the University website. "Additionally, we continue to emphasize the benefits of wearing a high-quality face mask in crowded indoor settings and remaining at home if unwell."

    "HUHS considers state and federal guidance, along with advice from the University’s public health experts, in responding to COVID-19. We will continue to monitor public health data and will periodically review requirements," it continued.

    Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns.

    In early 2022, university policies attracted considerable scrutiny in light of mounting evidence that two-dose mRNA vaccination coincided with a high rate of heart inflammation among young adults.

    "Students are the lowest risk population on planet Earth," Johns Hopkins University medical professor Marty Makary at the time. He further described the vaccine mandates as "a kind of martial law."

    Source:
    https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/harvard-drops-covid-19-vaccine-mandate

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty
    Harvard University Drops COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate 🇺🇸💉The Harvard University Health Services confirmed this week that the school will no longer require students to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. "We strongly recommend that all members of the Harvard community stay up-to-date on COVID-19 vaccines, including boosters if eligible," reads a notice on the University website. "Additionally, we continue to emphasize the benefits of wearing a high-quality face mask in crowded indoor settings and remaining at home if unwell." "HUHS considers state and federal guidance, along with advice from the University’s public health experts, in responding to COVID-19. We will continue to monitor public health data and will periodically review requirements," it continued. Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns. In early 2022, university policies attracted considerable scrutiny in light of mounting evidence that two-dose mRNA vaccination coincided with a high rate of heart inflammation among young adults. "Students are the lowest risk population on planet Earth," Johns Hopkins University medical professor Marty Makary at the time. He further described the vaccine mandates as "a kind of martial law." Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/harvard-drops-covid-19-vaccine-mandate Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty
    JUSTTHENEWS.COM
    Harvard drops COVID-19 vaccine mandate
    Harvard and other elite universities came under fire during the pandemic for the mandates, which several have held to long after the height of the lockdowns.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 1660 Ansichten
  • 5 Beautiful Dua for You This Ramadan


    We thank Allah s.w.t for reuniting us again with Ramadan after a long year of highs and lows. A meeting that the believers desperately need to nourish their faith by receiving the forgiveness of past sins and striving to achieve a higher place in the sight of Allah s.w.t. In a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah r.a:

    ‏إِذَا دَخَلَ شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ فُتِّحَتْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءِ وَغُلِّقَتْ أَبْوَابُ جَهَنَّمَ وَسُلْسِلَتِ الشَّيَاطِين

    “When the month of Ramadan enters, the gates of Heaven are opened, and the gates of Hell are closed and the devils are chained.”

    (Sahih Al-Bukhari & Muslim)

    In this very month, Allah s.w.t sends down His Mercy that is manifested into His forgiveness, multiplied rewards, acceptance and other blessings to His servants. Fortunate it is for those who strive hard to avoid falling into sins, continuously seek repentance and increase his/her worship. It is, however, a waste if we let this reunion pass by us like any other month.

    Read: The Spiritual Significance of Ramadan

    To be able to observe various deeds, one needs to supplicate to Allah s.w.t. for aid and acceptance. Thus, prayers serve as reminders as we seek to connect with the Divine.

    Here are some supplications that we regularly recite in the month of Ramadan. The translations are provided to guide us to understand, internalise and immerse ourselves in the spiritual experience of this sacred month.

    1. Ramadan Dua for the Day and Night

    There are no specific supplications to be read on the day of Ramadan. However, it does not mean there is no emphasis on supplication. We are encouraged to increase our ibadah (worship) to Allah, and “Supplication is worship” (At-Tirmizi)

    One of the many supplications that we can recite daily during the day and night throughout Ramadan is:

    أَشهَدُ أَن لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ الله، أَستَغفِرُ الله، نَسأَلُكَ الجَنَّةَ ونَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ النَّار

    Ashhadu an la ilaha illAllah, astaghfirullah, nas-alukal-jannata wa na'uzu bika minan-nar

    "I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah, I seek forgiveness from Allah, we ask you (O Allah) for Paradise and we seek refuge with you from the Hellfire."



    Our scholars have encouraged us to read the above supplication based on the following Hadith:

    فاستكثروا فيه من أربع خصال, خصلتين ترضون بهما ربكم ، وخصلتين لا غنى بكم عنهما: فأما الخصلتان اللتان ترضون بهما ربكم: فشهادة أن لا إله إلا الله ، وتستغفرونه ، وأما اللتان لا غنى بكم عنهما : فتسألون الله الجنة ، وتعوذون به من النار

    "And increase in this month (Ramadan) four matters; two of which shall be to please your Lord, while the other two shall be those of which you cannot make do without.

    As for the two matters which shall be to please your Lord, are that you should recite the testament of faith Lā ilāha illa Allāh and to seek His forgiveness.

    And as for the other two matters without which you cannot make do, you should be asking Allāh for paradise and seek refuge with Him from the fire of Jahannam."

    (Hadith narrated by Ibn Khuzaimah)

    2. Dua When Breaking Fast in Ramadan

    اللَّهُمَّ لَكَ صُمتُ وَعَلَى رِزقِكَ أَفطَرتُ

    Allahumma laka sumtu wa 'ala rizqika aftartu

    "O Allah, I have fasted for Your sake and broken the fast upon Your provisions."

    ذَهَبَ الظَّمأُ، وابْتَلَّتِ العُرُوقُ، وَثَبَتَ الأَجْرُ إِنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ تَعالى

    Zahabaz-zam-u, wa-btallatil-ʿurūqu, wathabatal-ajru in shā'a Allāhu taʿālā

    "The thirst is gone, the veins are moistened, and the reward has been earned if Allah wills."

    (Sunan Abi Dawud)



    The fasting person will find two kinds of happiness. The first is at the time of breaking the fast; the other is at the time of meeting with his/her Lord. One should be conscious of Allah's presence and that He has promised to send down blessings for the ones observing His fast. We shouldn't be too excited with the feasts lest we forget The One providing these provisions. Be mindful and make heartfelt prayers, for the Prophet s.a.w. mentioned:

    إِنَّ لِلصَّائِمِ عِنْدَ فِطْرِهِ لَدَعْوَةً مَا تُرَدُّ

    “Indeed the prayer of the fasting person during his break is not rejected.”

    (Sunan Ibn Majah)

    3. Supplication After Terawih Prayers in Ramadan

    بِسمِ اللهِ الرَّحمَنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ أَجْمَعِيْن

    اَللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْناَ بِالْإِيْمَانِ كَامِلِيْنْ، وَلِلْفَرَآئِضِ مُؤَدِّيْنَ، وَلِلصَّلَاةِ حَافِظِيْنَ، وَلِلزَّكَاةِ فَاعِلِيْنَ، وَلِمَا عِنْدَكَ طَالِبِيْنَ، وَلِعَفْوِكَ رَاجِيْنَ، وَبِالْهُدَى مُتَمَسِّكِيْن، وَعَنِ اللَّغْوِ مُعْرِضِيْنَ، وَفِي الدُّنْيَا زَاهِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْأَخِرَةِ رَاغِبِيْنَ، وَبِالْقَضَاءِ رَاضِيْنَ، وَبِالنَّعْمَاءِ شَاكِرِيْنَ، وَعَلَى الْبَلاءِ صَابِرِيْنَ، وَتَحْتَ لِوَاءِ سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ سَائِرِيْنَ، وَإِلَى الْحَوْضِ وَارِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْجَنَّةِ دَاخِلِيْنَ، وَمِنَ النَّارِ نَاجِيْنَ، وَعَلَى سَرِيْرَةِ الْكَرَامَةِ قَاعِدِيْنَ، وَبِحُوْرِ عيْنٍ مُتَزَوِّجِيْنَ، وَمِنْ سُنْدُسٍ وَاِسْتَبْرَقٍ وَدِيْبَاجٍ مُتَلَبِّسِيْنَ، وَمِنْ طَعَامِ الْجَنَّةِ آكِلِيْنَ، وَمِنْ لَبَنٍ وَعَسَلٍ مُصَفًّى شَارِبِيْنَ، بِأَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيْقَ وَكَأْسٍ مِنْ مَعِيْنٍ، مَعَ الَّذِيْنَ أَنعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّين والصِّدِّيقِينَ والشُّهَدَاءِ والصَّالِحِين، وحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا، ذَلِكَ الْفَضْلُ مِنَ اللهِ وَكَفَى بِاللهِ عَلِيْمًا، وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ

    ___________

    Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alameen, was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil-anbiya-i wal-mursaleen, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een.

    Allahummaj-'alna bil-imani kamilin, wa lil-fara-idhi mu-addin, wa lis-salati hafizhin, wa liz-zakati fa'ilin, wa lima 'indaka talibin, wa li'afwika rajin, wa bil-huda mutamassikin, wa 'anil-laghwi mu'ridin, wa fi'd-dunya zahidin, wa fil-akhirati raghibin, wa bil-qada-i radhin, wa bin-na'ma'i shakirin, wa 'ala al-bala-i sabirin, wa tahta liwa-i sayyidina Muhammadin sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallama yawmal qiyamati sa-irin, wa ilal-hawdhi waridin, wa fil-jannati dakhalin, wa minan-nari najin, wa 'alas-sariratil-karamati qa'idin, wa bihurin 'aynin mutazawwijin, wa min sundusin wa-istabraqin wa diybajin mutalabbisin, wa min ta'amil-jannati akilin, wa min labanin wa 'asalin musaffan sharibin, bi-akwabin wa abariqa wa ka'-sin min ma'in, ma'al-lazina an'amta 'alayhim minan-nabiyyina was-siddiqina wash-shuhada-i was-saliheen, wa hasuna ula-iqa rafiqa, zalikal-fadhlu minAllahi wa kafa bi-llahi 'aleeman, wal-hamdu lillahi Rabbil 'alameen.

    ___________

    In the name of Allah, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds. Prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader, Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions.

    O Allah make us from those who have complete faith, perform all obligations, guard their prayers, give zakat, seek that which is due from You, hope for Your forgiveness, hold on firmly to guidance, turn away from futile acts, show no excessive interest for worldly pleasures, devote for the hereafter, are pleased with the divine decree, are grateful for Your blessings, are patient during trials, would walk under the flag of our leader (sayyidina) Muhammad s.a.w. on the Day of Judgement, would arrive to the Prophet’s well (in the hereafter), would enter the Paradise, would be saved from the hellfire, would sit on the honoured mattresses (of paradise), would be married to the companions of Paradise, would be adorned with garments (of paradise) from Silk and Brocade, would eat from the food of Paradise, would drink from the milk and pure honey in the cups and goblets from the fountain of clear water, in the company of those You bestow blessings upon them from amongst the Prophets, the righteous, the martyrs and the pious and what a great company do they make. Such is Allah’s favour, and it is sufficient that Allah is All-Knowing. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds.

    ___________

    Read: How to Perform Solat Terawih: Step-by-Step Guide



    4. Supplication After Witr Prayers in Ramadan

    After ending the Witr prayer, the Prophet s.a.w. would recite three times:

    سُبْحَانَ الْمَلِكِ الْقُدُّوسِ

    "Glory be to the Sovereign, the Most Holy"

    (Sunan An-Nasa'i)

    Afterwards, we may also pray the following dua which is usually read in mosques after praying together in congregation. Ponder upon the meaning of this long and beautiful dua:

    بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحبِهِ أَجمَعِين. إِلَهَنَا قَد تَعَرَّضَ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ المُتَعَرِّضُون، وَقَصَدَكَ القَاصِدُون، وَرَغِبَ في جُودِكَ وَمَعرُوفِكَ الطَّالِبُون، وَلَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلِّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهرِ رَمَضَان نَفَحَاتٍ وَجَوَائِزَ وَمَوَاهِبَ وَعَطَايَا تَجُودُ بِهَا عَلَى مَنْ تَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِك، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِمَّنْ سَبَقَتْ لَهُ مِنْكَ العِنَايَة، هَا نَحْنُ نَدْعُوكَ كَمَا أَمَرْتَنَا، فَاستَجِبْ مِنَّا كَمَا وَعَدْتَنَا، إِنَّكَ لاَ تُخْلِفُ المِيْعَاد، يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمَّ يَا فَارِقَ الفُرقَانِ وَمُنزِلَ القُرآنِ بِالحِكمَةِ وَالبَيَان

    3x بَارِكِ اللَّهُمَّ لَنَا فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان

    وَأَعِدْهُ اللَّهُمَّ عَلَينَا سِنِيناً بَعْدَ سِنِين وَأَعوَامًا بَعدَ أَعوَامٍ عَلَى مَا تُحِبُّهُ وتَرْضَاهُ يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمّ إِنَّ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلُّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان عُتَقَاءَ مِنَ النَّار، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِنْ عُتَقَائِكَ مِنَ النَّار

    3x اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنَا مِنَ النَّارِ سَالِمِين

    وَأَدْخِلْنَا الجَنَّةَ آمِنِين، وَأَلحِقنَا باِلصَّالِحِين، ومَتِّعنَا بِالنَّظَرِ إِلَى وَجهِكَ الكَرِيم، يَا رَبَّ العَالَمِين

    3x اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّا

    اللَّهُمَّ تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا صَلاتَنَا وَصِيَامَنَا وَقِيَامَنَا وَرُكُوعَنَا وَسُجُودَنَا وَتَخَشُّعَنَا وَتَضَرُّعَنَا وَتَعَبُّدَنَا وَتَمِّم تَقْصِيْرَنَا يَا الله يَا أَرحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. وَصَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى الِهِ وَصَحبِهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ

    ___________

    Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin. Was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil 'anbiya-i wal-mursalin, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een.

    Ilahana qad ta'arrada laka fi hazihil-laylatil-muta'arridun, wa qasadakal-qasidun, wa raghiba fi judika wa ma'rufikat-talibun, wa laka fi hazihil-laylati wa kulli laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, nafahatin wa jawa-iza wa mawahiba wa 'ataya tajudu biha 'ala man tasha-u min 'ibadik, faj'alna-Allahumma min man sabaqat lahu minkal 'inayah, ha nahnu nad'uka kama amartana, fa-stajib minna kama wa'adtana, innaka la tukhliful mi'ad, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma ya Fariqal-furqan wa Munzilal-qur-an, bil-hikmati wal-bayan.

    Barikillahumma lana fi shahri Ramadan (3x)

    Wa a'idhu-llahuma 'alayna sininan ba'da sinin, wa a'waman ba'da a'wam 'ala ma tuhibbuhu wa tardahu, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma innaka fi hazihil-laylati, wa kullu laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, 'utuqa-a minan-nar, faj'alnAllahumma min 'utuqa-ika minan-nar

    Allahumma ajirna minan-nar salimeen (3x)

    Wa-adkhilnal-jannata amineen, wa-alhiqna bissaliheen, wa-mati'na binnazari ila wajhikal-kareem, ya Rabbal-‘alameen

    Allahumma innaka 'afuwwun tuhibbul-'afwa fa'fu ‘anna (3x)

    Allahumma taqabbal minna salatana, wa siyamana, wa qiyamana, wa ruku'ana, wa sujudana, wa takhashu'ana, wa tadharru'ana, wa ta'abbudana, wa tammim taqseerana, ya Allah ya Arhamar-Rahimeen. Wa sallAllahu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam, walhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin.

    ___________

    In the name of Allah the Most Gracious and Most Merciful. Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds, prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions. O our Lord, the seekers have presented before You in this very night, intending to reach You, desiring for Your bounties and grace. And You bestow in this night just as any other nights in the month of Ramadan, Your hidden bounties, provisions, presents and gifts upon whoever from Your servants as You please. Therefore, make us amongst those You mentioned to receive Your providence. And here we are praying to You as how You have commanded us. So accept our prayers as how You have promised us, for indeed You never break Your promise. O Most Merciful. O Allah, O Divider of truth from falsehood, and Bestower of the Quran with wisdom and clarity,

    O Allah bless us in the month of Ramadan 3x

    Unite us again with Ramadan year after year in a way that You love and pleases You O Most Merciful. O Allah you free in this night just as on any other nights in the month of Ramadan Your servants from the hellfire

    O Allah save us from the hellfire 3x

    Enter us into Paradise safely, enjoin us with the company of the pious, grant us to look upon Your Honourable Grace, O Lord of the worlds

    O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive us 3x

    O Allah, accept our Solat, our fast, our night worships (Qiyam), our bow (Ruku’), our prostrations, our submission, our invocation, our devotion and complete our shortcomings, O Allah, O Most Merciful. And prayers and salutations be upon our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad and upon his family and companions, and praise be to Allah the Lord of all the worlds

    ___________

    Read: How To Pray Tahajjud and Perform Qiyamullail

    5. Supplication in Seeking Laylatul Qadr (Night of Power) in Ramadan



    In a hadith, the Prophet s.a.w encouraged his wife Aisyah r.a. to read the following supplication if one were to meet Laylatul Qadr, the night that is better than a thousand months:

    اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّي

    Allahumma innaKa 'Afuwwun, tuhibbul 'afwa, fa'fu 'anni

    "O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive me."

    (Sunan At-Tirmizi)

    Although scholars have opinions regarding the exact date of the night of Laylatul Qadr such as it is in the last ten nights, the exact time, by the wisdom of Allah s.w.t remains to be His secret. Hence, it is encouraged for every believer to recite the above supplication repeatedly every night on the nights of Ramadan.

    Read: 4 Beautiful Significance of Laylatul Qadr

    Beyond reciting this supplication upon seeking the Night of Qadr, Muslims also make it a practice to recite this dua from the beginning of Ramadan regularly. Generally, mosques in Singapore recite this supplication after the daily congregational prayers.

    In addition to the list of dua provided above, it is also a common practice for our mosques in Singapore to recite the following:

    يَا تَوَّاب تُب عَلَينَا * وَارحَمنَا وَانظُر إِلَينَا

    قَد كَفَانِي عِلمُ رَبِّي * مِن سُؤَالِي وَاختِيَارِي

    فَدُعَائِي وَابتِهَالِي * شَاهِدٌ لِي بِافتِقَارِي

    أَنَا عَبدٌ صَارَ فَاخرِي * ضِمنَ فَقرِي وَاضطِرَارِي

    Yaa Tawwab tubb 'alayna * War-hamna wa-nzur ilaina
    Qad kafani 'ilmu Rabbi * min su-ali wa-khtiyari
    Fa-du'a'i wa-btihali * Shahidun li biftiqaria
    Ana 'abdun saara fakhiri * Dhimna faqri wa-dhtirari
    "O Most Receiving Of Repentance, accept our repentance – And bestow Your mercy upon us and turn to us
    The Knowledge of my Lord suffices me – From asking and deciding
    For my prayer and invocation – Is a witness to my state of destitute
    I am a servant and my pride lies – In my state of need and desperation.”

    As we increase our supplications to Allah s.w.t, it is important for us to observe the etiquettes of supplication. We start by seeking forgiveness first before anything else (repentance) to invoke upon Allah s.w.t. with humility, demonstrating deprivation and an utter sense of in-need. Allah s.w.t. mentions in the Quran:

    وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُوا بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ

    "When My servants ask you (O Prophet) about Me: (tell them that) I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided (to the right path)"

    (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:186)

    Some scholars have opined that since this verse is placed between verses about Ramadan and the laws of fasting, it indicates the merits of supplication in the blessed month of Ramadan.

    May this list of supplications benefit you and your loved ones. As we seek to attain the spiritual gems in this blessed month, we pray that Allah s.w.t helps us to clean our hearts and make us sincere in our worship. Indeed, He is closer to us than anything or anyone else.

    May Allah s.w.t. accept our acts of worship in this blessed month of Ramadan. May Allah s.w.t. allow us to be better Muslims and servants who serve Him through our service to humanity.


    https://muslim.sg/articles/5-beautiful-dua-for-you-this-ramadan

    https://telegra.ph/5-Beautiful-Dua-for-You-This-Ramadan-03-11
    5 Beautiful Dua for You This Ramadan We thank Allah s.w.t for reuniting us again with Ramadan after a long year of highs and lows. A meeting that the believers desperately need to nourish their faith by receiving the forgiveness of past sins and striving to achieve a higher place in the sight of Allah s.w.t. In a hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah r.a: ‏إِذَا دَخَلَ شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ فُتِّحَتْ أَبْوَابُ السَّمَاءِ وَغُلِّقَتْ أَبْوَابُ جَهَنَّمَ وَسُلْسِلَتِ الشَّيَاطِين “When the month of Ramadan enters, the gates of Heaven are opened, and the gates of Hell are closed and the devils are chained.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari & Muslim) In this very month, Allah s.w.t sends down His Mercy that is manifested into His forgiveness, multiplied rewards, acceptance and other blessings to His servants. Fortunate it is for those who strive hard to avoid falling into sins, continuously seek repentance and increase his/her worship. It is, however, a waste if we let this reunion pass by us like any other month. Read: The Spiritual Significance of Ramadan To be able to observe various deeds, one needs to supplicate to Allah s.w.t. for aid and acceptance. Thus, prayers serve as reminders as we seek to connect with the Divine. Here are some supplications that we regularly recite in the month of Ramadan. The translations are provided to guide us to understand, internalise and immerse ourselves in the spiritual experience of this sacred month. 1. Ramadan Dua for the Day and Night There are no specific supplications to be read on the day of Ramadan. However, it does not mean there is no emphasis on supplication. We are encouraged to increase our ibadah (worship) to Allah, and “Supplication is worship” (At-Tirmizi) One of the many supplications that we can recite daily during the day and night throughout Ramadan is: أَشهَدُ أَن لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ الله، أَستَغفِرُ الله، نَسأَلُكَ الجَنَّةَ ونَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنَ النَّار Ashhadu an la ilaha illAllah, astaghfirullah, nas-alukal-jannata wa na'uzu bika minan-nar "I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah, I seek forgiveness from Allah, we ask you (O Allah) for Paradise and we seek refuge with you from the Hellfire." Our scholars have encouraged us to read the above supplication based on the following Hadith: فاستكثروا فيه من أربع خصال, خصلتين ترضون بهما ربكم ، وخصلتين لا غنى بكم عنهما: فأما الخصلتان اللتان ترضون بهما ربكم: فشهادة أن لا إله إلا الله ، وتستغفرونه ، وأما اللتان لا غنى بكم عنهما : فتسألون الله الجنة ، وتعوذون به من النار "And increase in this month (Ramadan) four matters; two of which shall be to please your Lord, while the other two shall be those of which you cannot make do without. As for the two matters which shall be to please your Lord, are that you should recite the testament of faith Lā ilāha illa Allāh and to seek His forgiveness. And as for the other two matters without which you cannot make do, you should be asking Allāh for paradise and seek refuge with Him from the fire of Jahannam." (Hadith narrated by Ibn Khuzaimah) 2. Dua When Breaking Fast in Ramadan اللَّهُمَّ لَكَ صُمتُ وَعَلَى رِزقِكَ أَفطَرتُ Allahumma laka sumtu wa 'ala rizqika aftartu "O Allah, I have fasted for Your sake and broken the fast upon Your provisions." ذَهَبَ الظَّمأُ، وابْتَلَّتِ العُرُوقُ، وَثَبَتَ الأَجْرُ إِنْ شاءَ اللَّهُ تَعالى Zahabaz-zam-u, wa-btallatil-ʿurūqu, wathabatal-ajru in shā'a Allāhu taʿālā "The thirst is gone, the veins are moistened, and the reward has been earned if Allah wills." (Sunan Abi Dawud) The fasting person will find two kinds of happiness. The first is at the time of breaking the fast; the other is at the time of meeting with his/her Lord. One should be conscious of Allah's presence and that He has promised to send down blessings for the ones observing His fast. We shouldn't be too excited with the feasts lest we forget The One providing these provisions. Be mindful and make heartfelt prayers, for the Prophet s.a.w. mentioned: إِنَّ لِلصَّائِمِ عِنْدَ فِطْرِهِ لَدَعْوَةً مَا تُرَدُّ “Indeed the prayer of the fasting person during his break is not rejected.” (Sunan Ibn Majah) 3. Supplication After Terawih Prayers in Ramadan بِسمِ اللهِ الرَّحمَنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ أَجْمَعِيْن اَللَّهُمَّ اجْعَلْناَ بِالْإِيْمَانِ كَامِلِيْنْ، وَلِلْفَرَآئِضِ مُؤَدِّيْنَ، وَلِلصَّلَاةِ حَافِظِيْنَ، وَلِلزَّكَاةِ فَاعِلِيْنَ، وَلِمَا عِنْدَكَ طَالِبِيْنَ، وَلِعَفْوِكَ رَاجِيْنَ، وَبِالْهُدَى مُتَمَسِّكِيْن، وَعَنِ اللَّغْوِ مُعْرِضِيْنَ، وَفِي الدُّنْيَا زَاهِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْأَخِرَةِ رَاغِبِيْنَ، وَبِالْقَضَاءِ رَاضِيْنَ، وَبِالنَّعْمَاءِ شَاكِرِيْنَ، وَعَلَى الْبَلاءِ صَابِرِيْنَ، وَتَحْتَ لِوَاءِ سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ سَائِرِيْنَ، وَإِلَى الْحَوْضِ وَارِدِيْنَ، وَفِي الْجَنَّةِ دَاخِلِيْنَ، وَمِنَ النَّارِ نَاجِيْنَ، وَعَلَى سَرِيْرَةِ الْكَرَامَةِ قَاعِدِيْنَ، وَبِحُوْرِ عيْنٍ مُتَزَوِّجِيْنَ، وَمِنْ سُنْدُسٍ وَاِسْتَبْرَقٍ وَدِيْبَاجٍ مُتَلَبِّسِيْنَ، وَمِنْ طَعَامِ الْجَنَّةِ آكِلِيْنَ، وَمِنْ لَبَنٍ وَعَسَلٍ مُصَفًّى شَارِبِيْنَ، بِأَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيْقَ وَكَأْسٍ مِنْ مَعِيْنٍ، مَعَ الَّذِيْنَ أَنعَمْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ النَّبِيِّين والصِّدِّيقِينَ والشُّهَدَاءِ والصَّالِحِين، وحَسُنَ أُولَئِكَ رَفِيقًا، ذَلِكَ الْفَضْلُ مِنَ اللهِ وَكَفَى بِاللهِ عَلِيْمًا، وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ ___________ Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alameen, was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil-anbiya-i wal-mursaleen, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een. Allahummaj-'alna bil-imani kamilin, wa lil-fara-idhi mu-addin, wa lis-salati hafizhin, wa liz-zakati fa'ilin, wa lima 'indaka talibin, wa li'afwika rajin, wa bil-huda mutamassikin, wa 'anil-laghwi mu'ridin, wa fi'd-dunya zahidin, wa fil-akhirati raghibin, wa bil-qada-i radhin, wa bin-na'ma'i shakirin, wa 'ala al-bala-i sabirin, wa tahta liwa-i sayyidina Muhammadin sallAllahu 'alayhi wa sallama yawmal qiyamati sa-irin, wa ilal-hawdhi waridin, wa fil-jannati dakhalin, wa minan-nari najin, wa 'alas-sariratil-karamati qa'idin, wa bihurin 'aynin mutazawwijin, wa min sundusin wa-istabraqin wa diybajin mutalabbisin, wa min ta'amil-jannati akilin, wa min labanin wa 'asalin musaffan sharibin, bi-akwabin wa abariqa wa ka'-sin min ma'in, ma'al-lazina an'amta 'alayhim minan-nabiyyina was-siddiqina wash-shuhada-i was-saliheen, wa hasuna ula-iqa rafiqa, zalikal-fadhlu minAllahi wa kafa bi-llahi 'aleeman, wal-hamdu lillahi Rabbil 'alameen. ___________ In the name of Allah, The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds. Prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader, Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions. O Allah make us from those who have complete faith, perform all obligations, guard their prayers, give zakat, seek that which is due from You, hope for Your forgiveness, hold on firmly to guidance, turn away from futile acts, show no excessive interest for worldly pleasures, devote for the hereafter, are pleased with the divine decree, are grateful for Your blessings, are patient during trials, would walk under the flag of our leader (sayyidina) Muhammad s.a.w. on the Day of Judgement, would arrive to the Prophet’s well (in the hereafter), would enter the Paradise, would be saved from the hellfire, would sit on the honoured mattresses (of paradise), would be married to the companions of Paradise, would be adorned with garments (of paradise) from Silk and Brocade, would eat from the food of Paradise, would drink from the milk and pure honey in the cups and goblets from the fountain of clear water, in the company of those You bestow blessings upon them from amongst the Prophets, the righteous, the martyrs and the pious and what a great company do they make. Such is Allah’s favour, and it is sufficient that Allah is All-Knowing. Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds. ___________ Read: How to Perform Solat Terawih: Step-by-Step Guide 4. Supplication After Witr Prayers in Ramadan After ending the Witr prayer, the Prophet s.a.w. would recite three times: سُبْحَانَ الْمَلِكِ الْقُدُّوسِ "Glory be to the Sovereign, the Most Holy" (Sunan An-Nasa'i) Afterwards, we may also pray the following dua which is usually read in mosques after praying together in congregation. Ponder upon the meaning of this long and beautiful dua: بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيْم. الحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِيْن، وَالصَّلاَةُ وَالسَّلاَمُ عَلَى أَشْرَفِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالمُرْسَلِيْن سَيِّدِنَا وَمَوْلاَنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحبِهِ أَجمَعِين. إِلَهَنَا قَد تَعَرَّضَ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ المُتَعَرِّضُون، وَقَصَدَكَ القَاصِدُون، وَرَغِبَ في جُودِكَ وَمَعرُوفِكَ الطَّالِبُون، وَلَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلِّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهرِ رَمَضَان نَفَحَاتٍ وَجَوَائِزَ وَمَوَاهِبَ وَعَطَايَا تَجُودُ بِهَا عَلَى مَنْ تَشَاءُ مِنْ عِبَادِك، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِمَّنْ سَبَقَتْ لَهُ مِنْكَ العِنَايَة، هَا نَحْنُ نَدْعُوكَ كَمَا أَمَرْتَنَا، فَاستَجِبْ مِنَّا كَمَا وَعَدْتَنَا، إِنَّكَ لاَ تُخْلِفُ المِيْعَاد، يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمَّ يَا فَارِقَ الفُرقَانِ وَمُنزِلَ القُرآنِ بِالحِكمَةِ وَالبَيَان 3x بَارِكِ اللَّهُمَّ لَنَا فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان وَأَعِدْهُ اللَّهُمَّ عَلَينَا سِنِيناً بَعْدَ سِنِين وَأَعوَامًا بَعدَ أَعوَامٍ عَلَى مَا تُحِبُّهُ وتَرْضَاهُ يَا أَرْحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. اللَّهُمّ إِنَّ لَكَ فِي هَذِهِ اللَّيلَةِ وَكُلُّ لَيلَةٍ مِن لَيَالِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَان عُتَقَاءَ مِنَ النَّار، فَاجْعَلْنَا اللَّهُمَّ مِنْ عُتَقَائِكَ مِنَ النَّار 3x اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنَا مِنَ النَّارِ سَالِمِين وَأَدْخِلْنَا الجَنَّةَ آمِنِين، وَأَلحِقنَا باِلصَّالِحِين، ومَتِّعنَا بِالنَّظَرِ إِلَى وَجهِكَ الكَرِيم، يَا رَبَّ العَالَمِين 3x اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّا اللَّهُمَّ تَقَبَّلْ مِنَّا صَلاتَنَا وَصِيَامَنَا وَقِيَامَنَا وَرُكُوعَنَا وَسُجُودَنَا وَتَخَشُّعَنَا وَتَضَرُّعَنَا وَتَعَبُّدَنَا وَتَمِّم تَقْصِيْرَنَا يَا الله يَا أَرحَمَ الرَّاحِمِين. وَصَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَى سَيِّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى الِهِ وَصَحبِهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَالحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العَالَمِينَ ___________ Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Raheem. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin. Was-salatu was-salamu 'ala ashrafil 'anbiya-i wal-mursalin, sayyidina wa mawlana Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma'een. Ilahana qad ta'arrada laka fi hazihil-laylatil-muta'arridun, wa qasadakal-qasidun, wa raghiba fi judika wa ma'rufikat-talibun, wa laka fi hazihil-laylati wa kulli laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, nafahatin wa jawa-iza wa mawahiba wa 'ataya tajudu biha 'ala man tasha-u min 'ibadik, faj'alna-Allahumma min man sabaqat lahu minkal 'inayah, ha nahnu nad'uka kama amartana, fa-stajib minna kama wa'adtana, innaka la tukhliful mi'ad, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma ya Fariqal-furqan wa Munzilal-qur-an, bil-hikmati wal-bayan. Barikillahumma lana fi shahri Ramadan (3x) Wa a'idhu-llahuma 'alayna sininan ba'da sinin, wa a'waman ba'da a'wam 'ala ma tuhibbuhu wa tardahu, ya Arhamar-Rahimin. Allahumma innaka fi hazihil-laylati, wa kullu laylatin min layali shahri Ramadan, 'utuqa-a minan-nar, faj'alnAllahumma min 'utuqa-ika minan-nar Allahumma ajirna minan-nar salimeen (3x) Wa-adkhilnal-jannata amineen, wa-alhiqna bissaliheen, wa-mati'na binnazari ila wajhikal-kareem, ya Rabbal-‘alameen Allahumma innaka 'afuwwun tuhibbul-'afwa fa'fu ‘anna (3x) Allahumma taqabbal minna salatana, wa siyamana, wa qiyamana, wa ruku'ana, wa sujudana, wa takhashu'ana, wa tadharru'ana, wa ta'abbudana, wa tammim taqseerana, ya Allah ya Arhamar-Rahimeen. Wa sallAllahu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa 'ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam, walhamdulillahi Rabbil 'alamin. ___________ In the name of Allah the Most Gracious and Most Merciful. Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds, prayers and salutations be upon the noblest of all the prophets, our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad, and upon his entire family and companions. O our Lord, the seekers have presented before You in this very night, intending to reach You, desiring for Your bounties and grace. And You bestow in this night just as any other nights in the month of Ramadan, Your hidden bounties, provisions, presents and gifts upon whoever from Your servants as You please. Therefore, make us amongst those You mentioned to receive Your providence. And here we are praying to You as how You have commanded us. So accept our prayers as how You have promised us, for indeed You never break Your promise. O Most Merciful. O Allah, O Divider of truth from falsehood, and Bestower of the Quran with wisdom and clarity, O Allah bless us in the month of Ramadan 3x Unite us again with Ramadan year after year in a way that You love and pleases You O Most Merciful. O Allah you free in this night just as on any other nights in the month of Ramadan Your servants from the hellfire O Allah save us from the hellfire 3x Enter us into Paradise safely, enjoin us with the company of the pious, grant us to look upon Your Honourable Grace, O Lord of the worlds O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive us 3x O Allah, accept our Solat, our fast, our night worships (Qiyam), our bow (Ruku’), our prostrations, our submission, our invocation, our devotion and complete our shortcomings, O Allah, O Most Merciful. And prayers and salutations be upon our leader (sayyiduna) Muhammad and upon his family and companions, and praise be to Allah the Lord of all the worlds ___________ Read: How To Pray Tahajjud and Perform Qiyamullail 5. Supplication in Seeking Laylatul Qadr (Night of Power) in Ramadan In a hadith, the Prophet s.a.w encouraged his wife Aisyah r.a. to read the following supplication if one were to meet Laylatul Qadr, the night that is better than a thousand months: اللَّهُمَّ إِنَّكَ عَفُوٌّ تُحِبُّ الْعَفْوَ فَاعْفُ عَنِّي Allahumma innaKa 'Afuwwun, tuhibbul 'afwa, fa'fu 'anni "O Allah, You are indeed Forgiving and love to forgive, so forgive me." (Sunan At-Tirmizi) Although scholars have opinions regarding the exact date of the night of Laylatul Qadr such as it is in the last ten nights, the exact time, by the wisdom of Allah s.w.t remains to be His secret. Hence, it is encouraged for every believer to recite the above supplication repeatedly every night on the nights of Ramadan. Read: 4 Beautiful Significance of Laylatul Qadr Beyond reciting this supplication upon seeking the Night of Qadr, Muslims also make it a practice to recite this dua from the beginning of Ramadan regularly. Generally, mosques in Singapore recite this supplication after the daily congregational prayers. In addition to the list of dua provided above, it is also a common practice for our mosques in Singapore to recite the following: يَا تَوَّاب تُب عَلَينَا * وَارحَمنَا وَانظُر إِلَينَا قَد كَفَانِي عِلمُ رَبِّي * مِن سُؤَالِي وَاختِيَارِي فَدُعَائِي وَابتِهَالِي * شَاهِدٌ لِي بِافتِقَارِي أَنَا عَبدٌ صَارَ فَاخرِي * ضِمنَ فَقرِي وَاضطِرَارِي Yaa Tawwab tubb 'alayna * War-hamna wa-nzur ilaina Qad kafani 'ilmu Rabbi * min su-ali wa-khtiyari Fa-du'a'i wa-btihali * Shahidun li biftiqaria Ana 'abdun saara fakhiri * Dhimna faqri wa-dhtirari "O Most Receiving Of Repentance, accept our repentance – And bestow Your mercy upon us and turn to us The Knowledge of my Lord suffices me – From asking and deciding For my prayer and invocation – Is a witness to my state of destitute I am a servant and my pride lies – In my state of need and desperation.” As we increase our supplications to Allah s.w.t, it is important for us to observe the etiquettes of supplication. We start by seeking forgiveness first before anything else (repentance) to invoke upon Allah s.w.t. with humility, demonstrating deprivation and an utter sense of in-need. Allah s.w.t. mentions in the Quran: وَإِذَا سَأَلَكَ عِبَادِي عَنِّي فَإِنِّي قَرِيبٌ أُجِيبُ دَعْوَةَ الدَّاعِ إِذَا دَعَانِ فَلْيَسْتَجِيبُوا لِي وَلْيُؤْمِنُوا بِي لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْشُدُونَ "When My servants ask you (O Prophet) about Me: (tell them that) I am truly near. I respond to one’s prayer when they call upon Me. So let them respond ˹with obedience˺ to Me and believe in Me, perhaps they will be guided (to the right path)" (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:186) Some scholars have opined that since this verse is placed between verses about Ramadan and the laws of fasting, it indicates the merits of supplication in the blessed month of Ramadan. May this list of supplications benefit you and your loved ones. As we seek to attain the spiritual gems in this blessed month, we pray that Allah s.w.t helps us to clean our hearts and make us sincere in our worship. Indeed, He is closer to us than anything or anyone else. May Allah s.w.t. accept our acts of worship in this blessed month of Ramadan. May Allah s.w.t. allow us to be better Muslims and servants who serve Him through our service to humanity. https://muslim.sg/articles/5-beautiful-dua-for-you-this-ramadan https://telegra.ph/5-Beautiful-Dua-for-You-This-Ramadan-03-11
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 4053 Ansichten
  • Weight Loss Journey: The Best Diet Plan for Your Health

    Experience a transformation with the ultimate weight loss solution! Our carefully curated diet plan offers a holistic approach to shedding those extra pounds while promoting overall well-being. Packed with nutritious meals, personalized guidance, and expert support, embark on a journey to achieve your dream physique and optimal health. Don't wait any longer – invest in your health and buy now to kickstart your weight loss journey today!
    #weightloss #health #weightlosstips #weightlosssolution

    https://41ad9twjcs4yew8d-gmz08re6j.hop.clickbank.net
    Weight Loss Journey: The Best Diet Plan for Your Health Experience a transformation with the ultimate weight loss solution! Our carefully curated diet plan offers a holistic approach to shedding those extra pounds while promoting overall well-being. Packed with nutritious meals, personalized guidance, and expert support, embark on a journey to achieve your dream physique and optimal health. Don't wait any longer – invest in your health and buy now to kickstart your weight loss journey today! #weightloss #health #weightlosstips #weightlosssolution https://41ad9twjcs4yew8d-gmz08re6j.hop.clickbank.net
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 661 Ansichten
  • Absolute Yoga Mastery Review

    Superior Complete Yoga Expertise. With just 30 minutes a day, this incredible guide will help you achieve optimal health, mindfulness, and spiritual enlightenment.

    You will be able to maintain your strength, vitality, and health every day of your life with this excellent guidance.

    PLUS... Unrestricted Use Rights to Everything!


    Check Here For More >>

    https://dilip-review.com/absolute-yoga-mastery-review/#

    #HowtoMakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #AbsoluteYogaMasterybyIbrahimTijani #MakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #HowDoesAbsoluteYogaMasteryWork #AbsoluteYogaMasteryHonestReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScamorLegit #HowtoAbsoluteYogaMasteryTraffic #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLiveDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDownload #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpgrades #AbsoluteYogaMasterySoftware #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonuses #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReviews #AbsoluteYogaMasteryPreview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpsells #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonus #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScam #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLegit #AbsoluteYogaMasteryOTO #AbsoluteYogaMasteryApp
    Absolute Yoga Mastery Review Superior Complete Yoga Expertise. With just 30 minutes a day, this incredible guide will help you achieve optimal health, mindfulness, and spiritual enlightenment. You will be able to maintain your strength, vitality, and health every day of your life with this excellent guidance. PLUS... Unrestricted Use Rights to Everything! Check Here For More >> https://dilip-review.com/absolute-yoga-mastery-review/# #HowtoMakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #AbsoluteYogaMasterybyIbrahimTijani #MakeMoneywithAbsoluteYogaMastery #HowDoesAbsoluteYogaMasteryWork #AbsoluteYogaMasteryHonestReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScamorLegit #HowtoAbsoluteYogaMasteryTraffic #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLiveDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDownload #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpgrades #AbsoluteYogaMasterySoftware #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonuses #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReviews #AbsoluteYogaMasteryPreview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryUpsells #AbsoluteYogaMasteryReview #AbsoluteYogaMasteryBonus #AbsoluteYogaMasteryDemo #AbsoluteYogaMasteryScam #AbsoluteYogaMasteryLegit #AbsoluteYogaMasteryOTO #AbsoluteYogaMasteryApp
    DILIP-REVIEW.COM
    Absolute Yoga Mastery Review|100% FULL Unrestricted Use Rights
    Absolute Yoga Mastery Review - You will be able to maintain your strength, vitality, and health every day of your life with this excellent guidance.
    Love
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 1332 Ansichten
  • Medical Assistant Programs Los Angeles:
    Seeking top-tier Medical Assistant Programs in Los Angeles? Look no further than NIU College! Our comprehensive Medical Assisting Program in Los Angeles equips students with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in the healthcare industry. Join us to receive hands-on training, expert guidance, and embark on a rewarding career in healthcare. Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website for more: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-assisting-program
    Medical Assistant Programs Los Angeles: Seeking top-tier Medical Assistant Programs in Los Angeles? Look no further than NIU College! Our comprehensive Medical Assisting Program in Los Angeles equips students with the skills and knowledge needed to excel in the healthcare industry. Join us to receive hands-on training, expert guidance, and embark on a rewarding career in healthcare. Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website for more: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-assisting-program
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 1079 Ansichten
  • WEF Orders U.S. Electors To Not Certify Trump’s 2024 Election Win
    Sean Adl-Tabatabai
    Fact checked
    WEF orders electors to decertify election if Trump wins
    The World Economic Forum has instructed electors in the U.S. to not certify the upcoming presidential election if Trump wins.



    According to the WEF-funded publication The Atlantic, Democrats must prepare to refuse to certifiy the 2024 election in November.



    BYPASS THE CENSORS

    Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.

    You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

    The WEF mouthpiece put out an article Friday titled, “How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t“, outlining a strategy for Democrats to defy the election results if they don’t get their way.

    Infowars.com reports: The editorial lamented the Supreme Court’s recent hearing on the 14th Amendment over Colorado’s unprecedented ruling to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, and claimed Democrats may have to find another way to stop Trump outside the democratic process.


    From The Atlantic:

    Without clear guidance from the Court, House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6.

    Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray, said that if the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the question of Trump’s eligibility, “it could come back with a vengeance”—after the election, when Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College.

    Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

    In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress.

    The Atlantic piece was roundly criticized on social media over the left’s hypocrisy of prosecuting hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters contesting the results of the 2020 election while now scheming to halt the certification of the 2024 election.






    This is just the latest example of Democrats projecting their intention to defy the will of the voters if Trump wins the 2024 election.

    Last month, NBC News reported that “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers” are preparing to “foil any efforts” for Trump to use the military to carry out his political agenda if he becomes Commander-in-Chief once again.

    JOIN THE FIGHT: BECOME A CITIZEN JOURNALIST TODAY!

    Democrats should expect to go to prison in D.C. for 22 years for trying to overturn the election since they’ve set the precedent by jailing nonviolent J6 protesters for speaking out against the rigged 2020 election.

    https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-orders-u-s-electors-to-not-certify-trumps-2024-election-win/
    WEF Orders U.S. Electors To Not Certify Trump’s 2024 Election Win Sean Adl-Tabatabai Fact checked WEF orders electors to decertify election if Trump wins The World Economic Forum has instructed electors in the U.S. to not certify the upcoming presidential election if Trump wins. According to the WEF-funded publication The Atlantic, Democrats must prepare to refuse to certifiy the 2024 election in November. BYPASS THE CENSORS Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox. You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use The WEF mouthpiece put out an article Friday titled, “How Democrats Could Disqualify Trump If the Supreme Court Doesn’t“, outlining a strategy for Democrats to defy the election results if they don’t get their way. Infowars.com reports: The editorial lamented the Supreme Court’s recent hearing on the 14th Amendment over Colorado’s unprecedented ruling to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot, and claimed Democrats may have to find another way to stop Trump outside the democratic process. From The Atlantic: Without clear guidance from the Court, House Democrats suggest that they might not certify a Trump win on January 6. Sensing that Trump would likely stay on the ballot, the attorney, Jason Murray, said that if the Supreme Court didn’t resolve the question of Trump’s eligibility, “it could come back with a vengeance”—after the election, when Congress meets once again to count and certify the votes of the Electoral College. Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office. In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress. The Atlantic piece was roundly criticized on social media over the left’s hypocrisy of prosecuting hundreds of Jan. 6 protesters contesting the results of the 2020 election while now scheming to halt the certification of the 2024 election. This is just the latest example of Democrats projecting their intention to defy the will of the voters if Trump wins the 2024 election. Last month, NBC News reported that “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers” are preparing to “foil any efforts” for Trump to use the military to carry out his political agenda if he becomes Commander-in-Chief once again. JOIN THE FIGHT: BECOME A CITIZEN JOURNALIST TODAY! Democrats should expect to go to prison in D.C. for 22 years for trying to overturn the election since they’ve set the precedent by jailing nonviolent J6 protesters for speaking out against the rigged 2020 election. https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-orders-u-s-electors-to-not-certify-trumps-2024-election-win/
    THEPEOPLESVOICE.TV
    WEF Orders U.S. Electors To Not Certify Trump’s 2024 Election Win
    The World Economic Forum has instructed electors in the U.S. to not certify the upcoming presidential election if Trump wins.
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 5057 Ansichten
  • Medical Billing and Coding Schools Los Angeles:
    Unlock your future in healthcare administration with NIU College's premier Medical Billing and Coding Schools in Los Angeles. Our comprehensive program offers hands-on training and industry-relevant coursework, preparing you for success in this rapidly growing field. Discover a rewarding career path in medical billing and coding with NIU College's expert guidance and state-of-the-art education. Enroll today to start your journey toward a fulfilling healthcare profession in Los Angeles! Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website to find out more about our programs: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-billing-coding
    Medical Billing and Coding Schools Los Angeles: Unlock your future in healthcare administration with NIU College's premier Medical Billing and Coding Schools in Los Angeles. Our comprehensive program offers hands-on training and industry-relevant coursework, preparing you for success in this rapidly growing field. Discover a rewarding career path in medical billing and coding with NIU College's expert guidance and state-of-the-art education. Enroll today to start your journey toward a fulfilling healthcare profession in Los Angeles! Contact us at +1 818-698-2742 or visit our website to find out more about our programs: https://www.niucollege.edu/medical-billing-coding
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 2499 Ansichten
  • CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    World Council for Health
    This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.

    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334
    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585
    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    If this content is important to you, share it with your network!

    Share

    This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.


    If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you.

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 16785 Ansichten
  • How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza
    Thursday, 01 February 2024 7:54 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 01 February 2024 8:33 AM ]
    By David Miller

    The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so-called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces.

    The Association for Israel’s Soldiers is based in occupied Palestine and claims to be the sole avenue through which donations can be made directly to IDF soldiers and IDF units. These donations come from Zionists in Palestine as well as from the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France and the UK.

    The UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel Soldiers (AWIS) is a registered charity that is obliged by law to show public benefit. Its charitable objects include relief of need and suffering, advancement of education and provision of facilities for recreation of the occupation forces.

    It does this by providing Mobile Synagogues, recreational facilities for injured genocidaires, free holidays, free student scholarships, mobile Gym and rest and recreation facilities. Among the benefits are swimming pools including the one promoted in a video on Facebook in May last year. In the video, AWIS says they “created a swimming pool in the heart of the desert for the training base of the artillery corps.” Meanwhile, drinking water for Gaza has been cut off for more than three months.

    Each year, AWIS also puts on an “enlistment festival” for 30,000 recruits to the genocidal occupation forces.

    Guidance published by the Charity Commission states that it is a legal requirement that “any detriment or harm that results from [charitable purposes] must not outweigh the benefit.” Perhaps supporting genocide outweighs those purposes?

    Among the Trustees of the charity is Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British soldier said to have hateful views on Islam and Muslims. In December, the BBC was criticized for interviewing Kemp without reference to his role as a UK-AWIS trustee. In one recent interview with a pro-Israel blog, Kemp was quoted as describing the killing of civilians in Gaza as “necessary”.

    Another trustee is Josh Swidler, who is in the financial industry at a firm called Teamshares. Emphasizing the link between Zionists and Islamophobia, it turns out that Swidler was formerly one of the two directors of Henry Jackson Society Inc., the US fundraising arm of the Islamophobic British think tank.

    Research for Palestine Declassified, where I am the producer, has traced around twenty British charities that have donated to UK AWIS over the last twenty years. When we examined them we found that they tend to donate to a variety of Zionist causes. In particular, we looked to see which of the recipients directly supported the occupation forces, the so-called “Israel Defense Forces”, illegal settlements, Jewish supremacist sects, or Islamophobic think tanks. These four categories are a sort of Zionist funding bingo. Our research is presented in a table on our investigative Wiki database Powerbase under the title: “UK AWIS - supporters”. The data points there also link to profiles of each of the charities on the Powerbase website as well as the principal individuals involved and how they made their money. The list of charities is as follows:

    A. M. Charitable Trust
    C H (1980) Charitable Trust
    David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust
    Denise Cohen Charitable Trust
    G. R. P. Charitable Trust
    Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation
    Jack Goldhill Charitable Trust
    Lawson Beckman Charitable Trust
    Loftus Charitable Trust
    Family Foundations Trust
    R and S Cohen Foundation
    Rosenblatt Family Charitable Trust
    Stanley and Zea Lewis Family Foundation
    The J E Joseph Charitable Trust
    The Locker Foundation
    The Maurice Hatter Foundation
    The Peltz Trust (Dissolved June 2023)
    The Phillips and Rubens Charitable Trust
    The Phillips Family Charitable Trust
    Wigoder Family Foundation
    Of the twenty charities we have named which donate to AWIS, five in total have a “full house” sending money to at least one of each of the four categories of funding. We discuss these here at greater length.

    Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation which was created by Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster who runs Rontec, a company that operates over 250 BP and Esso service stations in the UK. These should be an urgent target for the BDS movement.
    Ronson also set up the Community Security Trust that runs point of the Zionist regime in the UK, spies on anti-Zionist Jews and deliberately confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in line with the policies of the Zionist regime. Ronson has collaborated with Mossad for decades, through the CST (created in 1994) and before that its predecessor, the Group Relations Educational Trust. One of the charitable objects of the CST is that it will ‘promote research’ and ‘promote public education about’ extremism. In practice, however, Ronson promotes extremism via his family foundation. Among recipients of funding, in addition to AWIS, are:

    The extreme Chabad sect, which Ronson has been supporting for over 40 years.
    The Jewish National Fund and the Jerusalem Foundation, both of which are engaged in supporting ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement activity in Palestine.
    Islamophobic think tanks Civitas and Policy Exchange.
    These donations are further evidence that Ronson in practice supports extremism and genocide, rather than opposing them.

    Loftus Charitable Trust, set up by the Loftus family, which made its money from the watchmaking firm Accurist. The family sold the firm to Sekonda in 2014. As well as AWIS, it also funds the extremist Zionist sect Chabad Lubavitch and the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society. An interesting sign of the small and connected world of the Zionist business class is that the owner of Time Products, the parent of Sekonda to which the Loftus family sold Accurist, is one Marcus Margulies. His family foundation also funds illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation, to which it gave £2.25 million in 2021. The Loftus Trust also gives to a long list of genocidal Zionist groups including the Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Mitzvah Day, Stand With Us, UK Friends of IDC (the only private university in ‘Israel’), UKLFI Charitable Trust (which supports the lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel), Union of Jewish Students, United Jewish Israel Appeal, Zionist Federation
    David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, set up by the Lewis family which owns the River Island clothing chain. The charity also funds Islamophobic think tank, Policy Exchange and illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jewish National Fund. In addition, the trust funds a range of extremist Zionist groups including Campaign Against Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Palestinian Media Watch, One Voice Europe, and United Jewish Israel Appeal.
    The Family Foundations Trust, set up by the UK property investor Richard Mintz. The charity has funded UK AWIS and another charity supporting the IDF – Beit Halochem, which we will discuss below. It has also funded the extremist sect Chabad-Lubavitch, the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society, and the Community Security Trust. Richard’s son and charity trustee Joshua co-founded the website Friend-a-Soldier, an online platform where soldiers can become ‘digital ambassadors’ for the occupation forces.
    Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust, set up in 1969 by the accountant Michael Phillips and his wife Ruth. Phillips was at that time a partner in the accountancy firm Hacker, Rubens, Phillips & Young, which he ran with the late Stuart Young. Stuart Young would later be appointed chairman of the BBC by Margaret Thatcher, and was the brother of David (later Lord) Young who at one time chaired the board of trustees of The Peter Cruddas Foundation, which has funded the anti-Muslim think tank Policy Exchange. Lord Young and Michael Phillips were also both trustees of the Stuart Young Foundation along with the solicitor Martin Paisner, who is also a trustee of the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and a large number of other Zionist and/or conservative foundations. The charity has donated to the occupation forces via AWIS from as early as 2009. It has also donated to British ORT, an “education” grouping that trains staff both in Israeli arms firms and in the occupation forces in “Israel”. It supports illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) via the Jerusalem Foundation and Yad Sarah, and supports the Jewish supremacist Lubavitch Foundation and the following Islamophobic think tanks: Centre for Social Cohesion, Civitas, Henry Jackson Society. Naturally, it also supports a range of (Zionist) Synagogues (e.g. United Synagogue) and lobby groups including the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students.
    UK AWIS is already under investigation by the UK charity regulator the Charity Commission. The investigation should widen to include the nexus of genocide-supporting charities revealed here. They should be shut down by the Charity Commission.

    In addition to AWIS, Zionist occupation forces are provided with millions in funding every year by other charities. These charities are almost wholly unknown.

    Palestine Declassified has unearthed new details on one of these charities called Beit Halochem. It is dedicated to raising money for what it calls ‘our’ heroes who have ‘fought’ to ‘protect the state of Israel’ – meaning members of the genocidal occupation forces currently engaged in mass killings in Gaza and throughout Palestine.

    Charitable objectives of the charity include the relief of ‘Adverse physical and mental effects suffered by individuals in Israel’. It doesn’t say so, explicitly, but it’s clear that the individuals noted do not include Palestinian civilians. As Beit Halochem says, its name ‘literally means “House of Warriors”.’

    This racism in the application of its ‘public benefit’ is one reason why this charity should be shut down by the UK Charity Commission.

    Another is that it violates the harm principle – the harm of supporting genocide clearly outweighs the benefit of rehabilitation of injured genocidaires.

    The Chairman of the charity is Andrew Wolfson, of the hugely wealthy Wolfson family. The family is best known for its ownership of the Next retail empire. Here is a picture of him with the genocidal president of ‘Israel’, Isaac Herzog, and the extremist advocate of the settler movement, the ambassador to London Tzipi Hotevely.

    The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust is named after his grandfather who died in 1970. Other trustees include his brother (Lord) Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of Next plc, and (Lord) Jon Mendelsohn, a key Israel lobby actor. The charity has donated over £600,000 to Beit Halochem since 2018.

    The charity also helps to encourage racism against Muslims by funding Islamophobic think tanks such as Civitas and Policy Exchange. It also funds the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly engaged in settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Al-Quds.

    Research for Palestine Declassified reveals that Beit Halochem receives funds and support from a range of other Zionist family foundations including the aforementioned Denise Cohen Charitable Trust, Family Foundations Trust, Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation, Loftus Charitable Trust, and The Locker Foundation, all of which also fund UK AWIS. Other charities involved include The Pears Family Charitable Foundation, Exilarch’s Foundation and Bluston Charitable Settlement. Here are some details on each of these three charities:

    The Pears Family Charitable Foundation is run by the Pears brothers once voted the worst landlord in the UK by viewers of a BBC consumer program. Their charity also funds Islamophobic think tank Civitas and Policy Exchange, the Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students, the United Jewish Israel Appeal, and normalizing charities including Mitzvah Day UK, Solutions Not Sides, The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has also funded the extreme ultra-Zionist Chabad sect, recently in the news for the illegally dug tunnels underneath their global HQ in New York.
    The Exilarch’s Foundation is run by David Dangoor, the property magnate who runs property firm Monopro which registered £121.9m assets in 2017-18. His foundation also funds the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds, via the Jerusalem Foundation as well as the Community Security Trust, the Faith and Belief Forum, the Tony Blair Institute, the Union of Jewish Students, the pro-Israel Jewish Leadership Council and the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the largest Zionist charity in the country.
    Bluston Charitable Settlement is run by Anna Josse, who co-runs private equity firm Regent Capital having established and run the Zionist foundation the New Israel Fund UK in the 1990s. She also helps to run Prism the Gift Fund which is a charity that operates and acts for a range of Zionist and other charities. Josse is a Manchester University graduate (after a stunt at a seminary in Israel) and former JSoc chair. She also worked at the Social Market Foundation think-tank. In addition to funding genocide via Beit Halochem, Bluston funds ethnic cleansing via the Jerusalem Foundation in occupied al-Quds and the Jewish National Fund.
    Among the testimonials on the Beit Halochem UK website is one from Ian Austin, the extreme Zionist and former Labour MP who has displayed a profile picture on X referring to Gaza with the words “Let Israel finish the job”.

    There are also tributes from the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi and even Israel’s settler-supporting genocidal ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotevely.

    Overall, Beit Halochem is devoted to supporting the genocidal Israel occupation forces in Gaza in what appears to be breaches of UK charity law.

    We will pass the evidence we have unearthed to the UK Charity Commission.

    https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/01/719268/How-British-charities-aiding-Israeli-genocide-Gaza

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-british-charities-are-aiding.html
    How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza Thursday, 01 February 2024 7:54 AM [ Last Update: Thursday, 01 February 2024 8:33 AM ] By David Miller The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so-called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces. The Association for Israel’s Soldiers is based in occupied Palestine and claims to be the sole avenue through which donations can be made directly to IDF soldiers and IDF units. These donations come from Zionists in Palestine as well as from the US, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, France and the UK. The UK Friends of the Association for the Wellbeing of Israel Soldiers (AWIS) is a registered charity that is obliged by law to show public benefit. Its charitable objects include relief of need and suffering, advancement of education and provision of facilities for recreation of the occupation forces. It does this by providing Mobile Synagogues, recreational facilities for injured genocidaires, free holidays, free student scholarships, mobile Gym and rest and recreation facilities. Among the benefits are swimming pools including the one promoted in a video on Facebook in May last year. In the video, AWIS says they “created a swimming pool in the heart of the desert for the training base of the artillery corps.” Meanwhile, drinking water for Gaza has been cut off for more than three months. Each year, AWIS also puts on an “enlistment festival” for 30,000 recruits to the genocidal occupation forces. Guidance published by the Charity Commission states that it is a legal requirement that “any detriment or harm that results from [charitable purposes] must not outweigh the benefit.” Perhaps supporting genocide outweighs those purposes? Among the Trustees of the charity is Colonel Richard Kemp, a former British soldier said to have hateful views on Islam and Muslims. In December, the BBC was criticized for interviewing Kemp without reference to his role as a UK-AWIS trustee. In one recent interview with a pro-Israel blog, Kemp was quoted as describing the killing of civilians in Gaza as “necessary”. Another trustee is Josh Swidler, who is in the financial industry at a firm called Teamshares. Emphasizing the link between Zionists and Islamophobia, it turns out that Swidler was formerly one of the two directors of Henry Jackson Society Inc., the US fundraising arm of the Islamophobic British think tank. Research for Palestine Declassified, where I am the producer, has traced around twenty British charities that have donated to UK AWIS over the last twenty years. When we examined them we found that they tend to donate to a variety of Zionist causes. In particular, we looked to see which of the recipients directly supported the occupation forces, the so-called “Israel Defense Forces”, illegal settlements, Jewish supremacist sects, or Islamophobic think tanks. These four categories are a sort of Zionist funding bingo. Our research is presented in a table on our investigative Wiki database Powerbase under the title: “UK AWIS - supporters”. The data points there also link to profiles of each of the charities on the Powerbase website as well as the principal individuals involved and how they made their money. The list of charities is as follows: A. M. Charitable Trust C H (1980) Charitable Trust David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust Denise Cohen Charitable Trust G. R. P. Charitable Trust Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation Jack Goldhill Charitable Trust Lawson Beckman Charitable Trust Loftus Charitable Trust Family Foundations Trust R and S Cohen Foundation Rosenblatt Family Charitable Trust Stanley and Zea Lewis Family Foundation The J E Joseph Charitable Trust The Locker Foundation The Maurice Hatter Foundation The Peltz Trust (Dissolved June 2023) The Phillips and Rubens Charitable Trust The Phillips Family Charitable Trust Wigoder Family Foundation Of the twenty charities we have named which donate to AWIS, five in total have a “full house” sending money to at least one of each of the four categories of funding. We discuss these here at greater length. Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation which was created by Gerald Ronson, the convicted fraudster who runs Rontec, a company that operates over 250 BP and Esso service stations in the UK. These should be an urgent target for the BDS movement. Ronson also set up the Community Security Trust that runs point of the Zionist regime in the UK, spies on anti-Zionist Jews and deliberately confuses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in line with the policies of the Zionist regime. Ronson has collaborated with Mossad for decades, through the CST (created in 1994) and before that its predecessor, the Group Relations Educational Trust. One of the charitable objects of the CST is that it will ‘promote research’ and ‘promote public education about’ extremism. In practice, however, Ronson promotes extremism via his family foundation. Among recipients of funding, in addition to AWIS, are: The extreme Chabad sect, which Ronson has been supporting for over 40 years. The Jewish National Fund and the Jerusalem Foundation, both of which are engaged in supporting ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement activity in Palestine. Islamophobic think tanks Civitas and Policy Exchange. These donations are further evidence that Ronson in practice supports extremism and genocide, rather than opposing them. Loftus Charitable Trust, set up by the Loftus family, which made its money from the watchmaking firm Accurist. The family sold the firm to Sekonda in 2014. As well as AWIS, it also funds the extremist Zionist sect Chabad Lubavitch and the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society. An interesting sign of the small and connected world of the Zionist business class is that the owner of Time Products, the parent of Sekonda to which the Loftus family sold Accurist, is one Marcus Margulies. His family foundation also funds illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation, to which it gave £2.25 million in 2021. The Loftus Trust also gives to a long list of genocidal Zionist groups including the Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Mitzvah Day, Stand With Us, UK Friends of IDC (the only private university in ‘Israel’), UKLFI Charitable Trust (which supports the lawfare group UK Lawyers for Israel), Union of Jewish Students, United Jewish Israel Appeal, Zionist Federation David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, set up by the Lewis family which owns the River Island clothing chain. The charity also funds Islamophobic think tank, Policy Exchange and illegal settlements via the Jerusalem Foundation and the Jewish National Fund. In addition, the trust funds a range of extremist Zionist groups including Campaign Against Antisemitism, Community Security Trust, Jewish Leadership Council, Palestinian Media Watch, One Voice Europe, and United Jewish Israel Appeal. The Family Foundations Trust, set up by the UK property investor Richard Mintz. The charity has funded UK AWIS and another charity supporting the IDF – Beit Halochem, which we will discuss below. It has also funded the extremist sect Chabad-Lubavitch, the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society, and the Community Security Trust. Richard’s son and charity trustee Joshua co-founded the website Friend-a-Soldier, an online platform where soldiers can become ‘digital ambassadors’ for the occupation forces. Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust, set up in 1969 by the accountant Michael Phillips and his wife Ruth. Phillips was at that time a partner in the accountancy firm Hacker, Rubens, Phillips & Young, which he ran with the late Stuart Young. Stuart Young would later be appointed chairman of the BBC by Margaret Thatcher, and was the brother of David (later Lord) Young who at one time chaired the board of trustees of The Peter Cruddas Foundation, which has funded the anti-Muslim think tank Policy Exchange. Lord Young and Michael Phillips were also both trustees of the Stuart Young Foundation along with the solicitor Martin Paisner, who is also a trustee of the Phillips & Rubens Charitable Trust and a large number of other Zionist and/or conservative foundations. The charity has donated to the occupation forces via AWIS from as early as 2009. It has also donated to British ORT, an “education” grouping that trains staff both in Israeli arms firms and in the occupation forces in “Israel”. It supports illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds (Jerusalem) via the Jerusalem Foundation and Yad Sarah, and supports the Jewish supremacist Lubavitch Foundation and the following Islamophobic think tanks: Centre for Social Cohesion, Civitas, Henry Jackson Society. Naturally, it also supports a range of (Zionist) Synagogues (e.g. United Synagogue) and lobby groups including the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Union of Jewish Students. UK AWIS is already under investigation by the UK charity regulator the Charity Commission. The investigation should widen to include the nexus of genocide-supporting charities revealed here. They should be shut down by the Charity Commission. In addition to AWIS, Zionist occupation forces are provided with millions in funding every year by other charities. These charities are almost wholly unknown. Palestine Declassified has unearthed new details on one of these charities called Beit Halochem. It is dedicated to raising money for what it calls ‘our’ heroes who have ‘fought’ to ‘protect the state of Israel’ – meaning members of the genocidal occupation forces currently engaged in mass killings in Gaza and throughout Palestine. Charitable objectives of the charity include the relief of ‘Adverse physical and mental effects suffered by individuals in Israel’. It doesn’t say so, explicitly, but it’s clear that the individuals noted do not include Palestinian civilians. As Beit Halochem says, its name ‘literally means “House of Warriors”.’ This racism in the application of its ‘public benefit’ is one reason why this charity should be shut down by the UK Charity Commission. Another is that it violates the harm principle – the harm of supporting genocide clearly outweighs the benefit of rehabilitation of injured genocidaires. The Chairman of the charity is Andrew Wolfson, of the hugely wealthy Wolfson family. The family is best known for its ownership of the Next retail empire. Here is a picture of him with the genocidal president of ‘Israel’, Isaac Herzog, and the extremist advocate of the settler movement, the ambassador to London Tzipi Hotevely. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust is named after his grandfather who died in 1970. Other trustees include his brother (Lord) Simon Wolfson, the Chief Executive of Next plc, and (Lord) Jon Mendelsohn, a key Israel lobby actor. The charity has donated over £600,000 to Beit Halochem since 2018. The charity also helps to encourage racism against Muslims by funding Islamophobic think tanks such as Civitas and Policy Exchange. It also funds the Jerusalem Foundation which is directly engaged in settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Al-Quds. Research for Palestine Declassified reveals that Beit Halochem receives funds and support from a range of other Zionist family foundations including the aforementioned Denise Cohen Charitable Trust, Family Foundations Trust, Gerald and Gail Ronson Family Foundation, Loftus Charitable Trust, and The Locker Foundation, all of which also fund UK AWIS. Other charities involved include The Pears Family Charitable Foundation, Exilarch’s Foundation and Bluston Charitable Settlement. Here are some details on each of these three charities: The Pears Family Charitable Foundation is run by the Pears brothers once voted the worst landlord in the UK by viewers of a BBC consumer program. Their charity also funds Islamophobic think tank Civitas and Policy Exchange, the Zionist Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Union of Jewish Students, the United Jewish Israel Appeal, and normalizing charities including Mitzvah Day UK, Solutions Not Sides, The Abraham Fund Initiatives. It has also funded the extreme ultra-Zionist Chabad sect, recently in the news for the illegally dug tunnels underneath their global HQ in New York. The Exilarch’s Foundation is run by David Dangoor, the property magnate who runs property firm Monopro which registered £121.9m assets in 2017-18. His foundation also funds the Islamophobic think tank Henry Jackson Society and ethnic cleansing in East al-Quds, via the Jerusalem Foundation as well as the Community Security Trust, the Faith and Belief Forum, the Tony Blair Institute, the Union of Jewish Students, the pro-Israel Jewish Leadership Council and the United Jewish Israel Appeal, the largest Zionist charity in the country. Bluston Charitable Settlement is run by Anna Josse, who co-runs private equity firm Regent Capital having established and run the Zionist foundation the New Israel Fund UK in the 1990s. She also helps to run Prism the Gift Fund which is a charity that operates and acts for a range of Zionist and other charities. Josse is a Manchester University graduate (after a stunt at a seminary in Israel) and former JSoc chair. She also worked at the Social Market Foundation think-tank. In addition to funding genocide via Beit Halochem, Bluston funds ethnic cleansing via the Jerusalem Foundation in occupied al-Quds and the Jewish National Fund. Among the testimonials on the Beit Halochem UK website is one from Ian Austin, the extreme Zionist and former Labour MP who has displayed a profile picture on X referring to Gaza with the words “Let Israel finish the job”. There are also tributes from the Board of Deputies, the Chief Rabbi and even Israel’s settler-supporting genocidal ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotevely. Overall, Beit Halochem is devoted to supporting the genocidal Israel occupation forces in Gaza in what appears to be breaches of UK charity law. We will pass the evidence we have unearthed to the UK Charity Commission. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/02/01/719268/How-British-charities-aiding-Israeli-genocide-Gaza https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/how-british-charities-are-aiding.html
    WWW.PRESSTV.IR
    How British ‘charities’ are aiding Israeli genocide in Gaza
    The genocide in Gaza is being perpetrated by the so called ‘Israel Defense Forces’. The whole world is appalled. Yet, in the UK, there are organizations raising money to support the genocidal occupation forces.
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 18340 Ansichten
  • 🚨 Moderna is Planning Another COVID Campaign Starting April 2025

    💉The COVID-19 vaccine industry is in trouble, with Big Pharma players such as Pfizer and Moderna undergoing significant turbulence. The departure of key sales executives further exacerbates the challenges faced by these companies.

    Endpoints News reports: "[Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion."

    "Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units.

    …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion."

    "However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025," revealed Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years experience in various roles. Her clients included Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and more.

    Full story: 👇
    https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/future-outlook-moderna-is-planning

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025.
    Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards.

    Sasha Latypova
    According to Endpoints News, covid vax business is in trouble - both Pfizer and Moderna are tanking, and heads of sales have departed:

    [Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion.

    Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units.

    …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion.

    However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025.

    According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this):

    Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025.

    Review of Moderna’s publicly available full of shit R&D pipeline indicates that indeed, there are 4-5 different mRNA vaxxes for flu in late stages of development, another one for RSV, then different combos of flu-Covid+RSV, etc.

    Also, looks like gene therapies have been renamed into “intracellular therapeutics”. Gosh, all that attention to gene hacking is not great for PR! They still sport old failures like the CMV and zika vaxxes, on their pipeline, including the gene therapy (ahem, intracellular therapeutic) for Crigler-Najar syndrome which conclusively failed around 2012, that’s eons ago! They are claiming they gave it away for free to something called The Institute for Life Changing Medicines. It’s life changing, for sure… the founder of this Institute, Tachi Yamada “passed away unexpectedly” in August 2021. I wonder what was the cause of death? He looked not old and quite healthy… Maybe he partook in the intracellular miracles?

    More from my secret Moderna source:

    There is an email today asking for employees to donate blood to develop assays that will be used to generate key data in their clinical trials. They are offering $75 gift cards.

    Starting April of 2025 the covid campaign [is expected to] kick off, [therefore] by April of 2024 they will be in full covid vax production.

    I find it odd this year [2023] there was no covid vax production, boosters etc were basically left over from the original product runs.

    I am going to speculate here about this interesting timing:

    2024 is an election year! Biden (or a suitable puppet substitute) needs to be installed/reinstalled, and therefore the government’s covid boot should be off our necks since it is associated too much with the current regime. The authorized “freedom” narrative goes like this: Mistakes were made, dolts botched shit, replace those dolts with some other dolts, do some listening sessions to pretend public pushback had some impact. Do some bombshell interviews on Tucker Carlson’s show, where literal truth bombs like “Pfizer lied!!” “FDA didn’t do its job!” and “WHO bad!” are allowed to be dropped. Blame Pfizer for everything! (don’t mention Moderna too often, best - not at all). Even allow somebody to sue Pfizer! Blame the corporate greed, the greedy capitalists, corporations and stuff. Note: the federal government is not at fault, they are saintly incompetent people prone to making many mistakes. They are sincerely stupid, and just can’t see the data! Ask them to look at the VAERS data one more time…

    There is non-zero probability that Pfizer production may be shut down at some point: maybe FDA will “find” manufacturing violations, or maybe AG Paxton will miraculously prevail in his lawsuit in TX for false advertising, maybe investigation by Ron DeSantis will miraculously turn out not to be a fake political stunt - there are several potential scenarios how this will unfold. Note, this post was written and scheduled several weeks ago. Late breaking news: Ron DeSantis’s grand jury is a political stunt and a total joke. In any case, Moderna might become the “exclusive” manufacturer of Poison-19, just like Emergent Biosolutions is exclusive for the anthrax poisoning-of-the-troops elixir. Hence, planning ramped up volumes in 2025.

    Since Moderna is a DOD/DARPA/CDC/CIA company, this should tell us that the government are planning another bunch of false flags, fear mongering and generation of “sentinel cases” (cruise ships, Navy ships, subways, large events, other crowded places) for some “new mutated covid variant” in 2025. Or they are simply expecting the VAIDS to ramp up by 2025. Or all/combinations of the above.

    It should be noted that Moderna doesn’t really make their product, it is made for them by the DOD/CIA’s baby Resilience - a biomanufacturing behemoth, funded and controlled by the federal government. Resilience goes by several names (aka Nanotherapeutics, Ology and a few others), and has many strong links to the CIA and Inqtel (CIA’s “venture fund”). Here is a well made 7 min analysis, click on the link:

    https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1735421884395860246


    Here is my prediction for the dominant narratives in regard to this for the elections year - R vs D affiliations do not matter. Only the candidates that are beholden to the Pandemic Preparedness Cult (here, here, here) will be allowed to proceed to the actual ticket. So that the DOD/CIA control them no matter what the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the DOD/CIA to continue making poison, pumping poison and profit from it. Thus, be prepared for your favorite candidate to endorse the idea of pandemics and outbreaks of dangerous pathogens, the idea that the government must “protect” us from these dangers, the stories of dolts botching shit, pointing of fingers at their opponent who was “pro-lockdown and masking”, promises to replace dolts with some other better dolts, even promises to get Pfizer and their corporate greed “brought to justice”, sort of. But do not expect any of your favorite candidates to point at the root cause of the millions of dead and injured - the federal government and its goon agents who built the illegal-legal cage where genocide is completely legal, or at a minimum, impossible to prosecute. That’s because the goal of your favorite political candidate is to align with the interests of that awesome federal government power pyramid in order to be hired as its next sock puppet, not to upset or reform it.

    Art for today: Hydrangea and Sake Bottle, oil on panel, 14x18 in.

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/moderna-is-planning-another-covid.html

    🚨 Moderna is Planning Another COVID Campaign Starting April 2025 💉The COVID-19 vaccine industry is in trouble, with Big Pharma players such as Pfizer and Moderna undergoing significant turbulence. The departure of key sales executives further exacerbates the challenges faced by these companies. Endpoints News reports: "[Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion." "Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion." "However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025," revealed Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical industry executive with 25 years experience in various roles. Her clients included Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, and more. Full story: 👇 https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/future-outlook-moderna-is-planning Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025. Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards. Sasha Latypova According to Endpoints News, covid vax business is in trouble - both Pfizer and Moderna are tanking, and heads of sales have departed: [Moderna] reaffirmed its focus on driving Covid-19 and soon RSV vaccine sales, though the former’s sales have been challenged by waning demand. Moderna said last month that it expects Covid sales to “hit a low point” in 2024, while Pfizer recently slashed expectations for its Comirnaty shot by $2 billion. Pfizer also announced an executive shake-up on Tuesday. Chief commercial officer and global biopharma president Angela Hwang will depart after 27 years at the pharma giant as the company creates two non-oncology commercial units. …the company prepares to launch its RSV vaccine in 2024 and promises to deliver “multiple products per year from 2025 forward.” The company stuck to its full-year 2023 sales guidance of $6 billion to $8 billion on its latest quarterly call, but said the low end is more realistic, also noting a $1.3 billion write-down for “excess and obsolete” Covid product. Executives expect 2024 revenue to be around $4 billion. However, according to my secret sources, it appears that after an anticipated “low point” in 2024, Moderna expects that covid vaccine volume will steeply ramp up again starting in April 2025. According to an insider (don’t ask me how I got this): Moderna is preparing to launch 15 mRNA products in the next 5 years. Up to four of those could come by 2025. Review of Moderna’s publicly available full of shit R&D pipeline indicates that indeed, there are 4-5 different mRNA vaxxes for flu in late stages of development, another one for RSV, then different combos of flu-Covid+RSV, etc. Also, looks like gene therapies have been renamed into “intracellular therapeutics”. Gosh, all that attention to gene hacking is not great for PR! They still sport old failures like the CMV and zika vaxxes, on their pipeline, including the gene therapy (ahem, intracellular therapeutic) for Crigler-Najar syndrome which conclusively failed around 2012, that’s eons ago! They are claiming they gave it away for free to something called The Institute for Life Changing Medicines. It’s life changing, for sure… the founder of this Institute, Tachi Yamada “passed away unexpectedly” in August 2021. I wonder what was the cause of death? He looked not old and quite healthy… Maybe he partook in the intracellular miracles? More from my secret Moderna source: There is an email today asking for employees to donate blood to develop assays that will be used to generate key data in their clinical trials. They are offering $75 gift cards. Starting April of 2025 the covid campaign [is expected to] kick off, [therefore] by April of 2024 they will be in full covid vax production. I find it odd this year [2023] there was no covid vax production, boosters etc were basically left over from the original product runs. I am going to speculate here about this interesting timing: 2024 is an election year! Biden (or a suitable puppet substitute) needs to be installed/reinstalled, and therefore the government’s covid boot should be off our necks since it is associated too much with the current regime. The authorized “freedom” narrative goes like this: Mistakes were made, dolts botched shit, replace those dolts with some other dolts, do some listening sessions to pretend public pushback had some impact. Do some bombshell interviews on Tucker Carlson’s show, where literal truth bombs like “Pfizer lied!!” “FDA didn’t do its job!” and “WHO bad!” are allowed to be dropped. Blame Pfizer for everything! (don’t mention Moderna too often, best - not at all). Even allow somebody to sue Pfizer! Blame the corporate greed, the greedy capitalists, corporations and stuff. Note: the federal government is not at fault, they are saintly incompetent people prone to making many mistakes. They are sincerely stupid, and just can’t see the data! Ask them to look at the VAERS data one more time… There is non-zero probability that Pfizer production may be shut down at some point: maybe FDA will “find” manufacturing violations, or maybe AG Paxton will miraculously prevail in his lawsuit in TX for false advertising, maybe investigation by Ron DeSantis will miraculously turn out not to be a fake political stunt - there are several potential scenarios how this will unfold. Note, this post was written and scheduled several weeks ago. Late breaking news: Ron DeSantis’s grand jury is a political stunt and a total joke. In any case, Moderna might become the “exclusive” manufacturer of Poison-19, just like Emergent Biosolutions is exclusive for the anthrax poisoning-of-the-troops elixir. Hence, planning ramped up volumes in 2025. Since Moderna is a DOD/DARPA/CDC/CIA company, this should tell us that the government are planning another bunch of false flags, fear mongering and generation of “sentinel cases” (cruise ships, Navy ships, subways, large events, other crowded places) for some “new mutated covid variant” in 2025. Or they are simply expecting the VAIDS to ramp up by 2025. Or all/combinations of the above. It should be noted that Moderna doesn’t really make their product, it is made for them by the DOD/CIA’s baby Resilience - a biomanufacturing behemoth, funded and controlled by the federal government. Resilience goes by several names (aka Nanotherapeutics, Ology and a few others), and has many strong links to the CIA and Inqtel (CIA’s “venture fund”). Here is a well made 7 min analysis, click on the link: https://twitter.com/Cancelcloco/status/1735421884395860246 Here is my prediction for the dominant narratives in regard to this for the elections year - R vs D affiliations do not matter. Only the candidates that are beholden to the Pandemic Preparedness Cult (here, here, here) will be allowed to proceed to the actual ticket. So that the DOD/CIA control them no matter what the outcome of the elections. It is crucial for the DOD/CIA to continue making poison, pumping poison and profit from it. Thus, be prepared for your favorite candidate to endorse the idea of pandemics and outbreaks of dangerous pathogens, the idea that the government must “protect” us from these dangers, the stories of dolts botching shit, pointing of fingers at their opponent who was “pro-lockdown and masking”, promises to replace dolts with some other better dolts, even promises to get Pfizer and their corporate greed “brought to justice”, sort of. But do not expect any of your favorite candidates to point at the root cause of the millions of dead and injured - the federal government and its goon agents who built the illegal-legal cage where genocide is completely legal, or at a minimum, impossible to prosecute. That’s because the goal of your favorite political candidate is to align with the interests of that awesome federal government power pyramid in order to be hired as its next sock puppet, not to upset or reform it. Art for today: Hydrangea and Sake Bottle, oil on panel, 14x18 in. https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/moderna-is-planning-another-covid.html
    SASHALATYPOVA.SUBSTACK.COM
    Moderna is planning another covid campaign starting April 2025.
    Employees are asked to donate blood for experiments in exchange for $75 gift cards.
    Angry
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 12682 Ansichten
  • CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker.


    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

    Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.
    cdc masks ineffective covid feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker.

    The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness.

    During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus.

    However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker.

    “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender.

    To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote.

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

    According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.”

    In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.”

    The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two.

    The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong.

    “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said.

    The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.”

    More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks.

    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax
    RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax”

    Order Now

    According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness.

    Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children.

    According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.”

    “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted.

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

    Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.”


    That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19.

    However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote.

    “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks.

    “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted.


    According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control.

    In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.”



    According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies.

    “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.”

    The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said.

    Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said.

    “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote.

    Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.”

    Risch said:

    “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.”

    According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective.

    “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.”

    Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others.

    “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.”

    “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added.

    In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness.

    A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness.

    According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.”

    A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer.

    A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

    “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions.

    “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.”

    Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy.

    Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.”

    In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.”

    A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.”

    Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.”

    “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.”

    “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said.

    Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America.

    “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said.

    “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added.

    Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.”

    “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender.

    “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said.

    DETAILS ⬇️
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/

    Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker. CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. cdc masks ineffective covid feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. DETAILS ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    Angry
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 13484 Ansichten
  • WEU wins Unfair Dismissal case for Care Worker over Covid 19 ‘Vaccine’.

    "...There was no legislation in place which mandated that Mr Trotman had to have the Covid 19 vaccine or provide an exemption certificate at the time of his dismissal on 23rd December 2021, the legislations were not due to come into force until 1st April 2022.

    The employer rejected the WEU exemption certificate issued on behalf of Mr Trotman, and Mr Trotman’s self certification, both of which were allowed under the legislation, but insisted he had to follow the NHS exemption route, something that was not in the legislation.

    The Judge highlighted that the company had clearly not understood the differences between Statutory law, Secondary legislation, Case law, and Government guidance...."

    https://www.workersofengland.co.uk/latest-news/weu-wins-unfair-dismissal-case-for-care-worker-over-covid-19-vaccine/
    WEU wins Unfair Dismissal case for Care Worker over Covid 19 ‘Vaccine’. "...There was no legislation in place which mandated that Mr Trotman had to have the Covid 19 vaccine or provide an exemption certificate at the time of his dismissal on 23rd December 2021, the legislations were not due to come into force until 1st April 2022. The employer rejected the WEU exemption certificate issued on behalf of Mr Trotman, and Mr Trotman’s self certification, both of which were allowed under the legislation, but insisted he had to follow the NHS exemption route, something that was not in the legislation. The Judge highlighted that the company had clearly not understood the differences between Statutory law, Secondary legislation, Case law, and Government guidance...." https://www.workersofengland.co.uk/latest-news/weu-wins-unfair-dismissal-case-for-care-worker-over-covid-19-vaccine/
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 1886 Ansichten
  • The crimes of Winston Churchill
    Crimes of Britain
    Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation — voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill. The history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death. The man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them. A racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity.


    Afghanistan:

    Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes.

    “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” — Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it.

    Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac.

    Cuba:


    Churchill wrote that he was concerned Cuba would turn in to “another black republic” in 1896. By “another” he was referring to Haiti which was the first nation in modern times to abolish slavery. Haiti has been punished for doing so ever since.

    Egypt:


    “Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged” — Winston Churchill on how to deal with Egypt in 1951.

    Greece:


    The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. Who were they? Were they supporters of Nazism? No, they were in fact anti-Nazis.

    The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army on Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti” (these were the very people who ran the Nazis out). His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism.

    The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece. This deeply worried Churchill. He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy.

    In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was put in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922–1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC which was responsible for countless terror.

    In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”.

    Guyana:


    Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan.

    India:


    “I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. — Churchill wishing partition on India

    Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say.

    Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East — where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even the right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal.

    Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time.

    The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism. He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire. He moaned “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”.

    In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them.

    When India was partitioned in 1947 millions of people died and millions more were displaced. Churchill said that the creation of Pakistan, which has been an imperialist outpost for the British and Americans since its inception, was Britain’s “bit of India”.

    Iran:


    “A prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” — Churchill on Iran’s oil

    When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. He meddled in Iranian affairs for decades doing his utmost to exclude Iranians from their natural resources. Encouraging the looting of the nation when most lived in severe poverty.

    In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government.

    When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953. He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”.

    Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”.

    Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran.

    Iraq:


    “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” — Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India

    Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921. He formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed.

    Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population.

    Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq.

    When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages.

    Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’:

    “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. — Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris.

    Ireland:


    “We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” — Churchill

    In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain. He is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland.

    The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud. Rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”.

    It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre. They fired into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress a people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”.

    He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”.

    Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force.

    In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland.

    Churchill went on to remark”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs.

    Kenya:


    Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”.

    At least 150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people on Churchill’s watch.

    In 1954 during a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching:

    “This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe”

    The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue.

    Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”.

    Palestine:


    “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.”

    In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism.

    He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine.

    In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.

    A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”.

    At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”.

    He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”.

    Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done by the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy.

    Russia:


    Churchill’s hatred and paranoia about communism saw him suggest that an atomic bomb should be dropped on the Kremlin. He believed this would “handle the balance of power”.

    Saudi Arabia:


    “My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us.” — Churchill

    Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000.

    Churchill knew full well of the dangers of wahhabism. He gave a speech to the House of Commons in 1921 where he stated that Ibn Saud’s followers “hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets… [they are] austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty”. He was however content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for the benefit of British imperialism.

    Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”. He showered Ibn Saud with money and presents — gifting Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s.

    South Africa:


    Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”.

    Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”.

    It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting.

    He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”.

    In conclusion:

    There have been a number of attempts to rehabailtate the image of the British Empire in Britain in recent years. Particularly via the medium of cinema. The film Darkest Hour didn’t show you anything about Churchill’s crimes. On the contrary it presented him as a hero. Gary Oldham won an Oscar for his portrayal of one of the most evil, imperialists ever.

    British Nationalist groups in Britain hold Churchill up as their posterboy. And so they should. He was a racist to the core. In response to migration from the Caribbean to Britain he said England should “be kept white”. Throughout worl war two his cabinet obsessed over British people viewing American Black GI’s favourably. They were concerned that they would fraternised with white English women. A true believer in white supremacy, Churchill blamed the Native American and Aboriginal Australian people for their genocides. He said he did “not admit that a great wrong has been done to the red Indians and the black people of Australia.”

    Winner of the Noble Prize in Literature, Churchill actually plagiarised his most well known speech from an Irish Republican called Robert Emmet who was hanged and then beheaded by the British in 1803. Winston’s famous “we shall fight them on beaches” line was lifted from Emmet’s speech from the dock.

    When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than complimentary and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes. He suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”. And that for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”.

    It needs to be put once and for all that Churchill was despicable, racist, war criminal. Some will argue his “sins” are expiated for his actions during the second world war. It is nothing but nonsense to suggest Churchill went out to fight fascism. He lauded Mussolini as a “roman genius”, donated to Nazi war criminal Erich Von Manstien’s criminal defence and sought to desperatly cling on to the British Empire from which Hitler himself took inspiration for his Reich. What we have to remember is Churchill was not a uniquely villianous British Prime Minister. He was not out of ordinary but in fact a true representation of Britain.





    https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3
    The crimes of Winston Churchill Crimes of Britain Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation — voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time. Below is the real history of Churchill. The history of a white supremacist whose hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death. The man who loathed Irish people so much he conceived different ways to terrorise them. A racist thug who waged war on black people across Africa and in Britain. This is the trial of Winston Churchill, the enemy of all humanity. Afghanistan: Churchill found his love for war during the time he spent in Afghanistan. While there he said “all who resist will be killed without quarter” because the Pashtuns need “recognise the superiority of race”. He believed the Pashtuns needed to be dealt with, he would reminisce in his writings about how he partook in the burning villages and peoples homes. “We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.” — Churchill on how the British carried on in Afghanistan, and he was only too happy to be part of it. Churchill would also write of how “every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once”. Proud of the terror he helped inflict on the people of Afghanistan Churchill was well on the road to becoming a genocidal maniac. Cuba: Churchill wrote that he was concerned Cuba would turn in to “another black republic” in 1896. By “another” he was referring to Haiti which was the first nation in modern times to abolish slavery. Haiti has been punished for doing so ever since. Egypt: “Tell them that if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should never have emerged” — Winston Churchill on how to deal with Egypt in 1951. Greece: The British Army under the guidance of Churchill perpetrated a massacre on the streets of Athens in the month of December 1944. 28 protesters were shot dead, a further 128 injured. Who were they? Were they supporters of Nazism? No, they were in fact anti-Nazis. The British demanded that all guerrilla groups should disarm on the 2nd December 1944. The following day 200,000 people took to the streets, and this is when the British Army on Churchill’s orders turned their guns on the people. Churchill regarded ELAS (Greek People’s Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front) as “miserable banditti” (these were the very people who ran the Nazis out). His actions in the month of December were purely out of his hatred and paranoia for communism. The British backed the right-wing government in Greece returned from exile after the very same partisans of the resistance that Churchill ordered the murder of had driven out the Nazi occupiers. Soviet forces were well received in Greece. This deeply worried Churchill. He planned to restore the monarchy in Greece to combat any possible communist influence. The events in December were part of that strategy. In 1945, Churchill sent Charles Wickham to Athens where he was put in charge of training the Greek security police. Wickham learned his tricks of the trade in British occupied Ireland between 1922–1945 where he was a commander of the colonial RUC which was responsible for countless terror. In April 1945 Churchill said “the [Nazi] collaborators in Greece in many cases did the best they could to shelter the Greek population from German oppression” and went on to say “the Communists are the main foe”. Guyana: Churchill ordered the overthrowing of the democratically elected leader of ‘British Guiana’. He dispatched troops and warships and suspended their constitution all to put a stop to the governments nationalisation plan. India: “I’d rather see them have a good civil war”. — Churchill wishing partition on India Very few in Britain know about the genocide in Bengal let alone how Churchill engineered it. Churchill’s hatred for Indians led to four million starving to death during the Bengal ‘famine’ of 1943. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion” he would say. Bengal had a better than normal harvest during the British enforced famine. The British Army took millions of tons of rice from starving people to ship to the Middle East — where it wasn’t even needed. When the starving people of Bengal asked for food, Churchill said the ‘famine’ was their own fault “for breeding like rabbits”. The Viceroy of India said “Churchill’s attitude towards India and the famine is negligent, hostile and contemptuous”. Even the right wing imperialist Leo Amery who was the British Secretary of State in India said he “didn’t see much difference between his [Churchill] outlook and Hitler’s”. Churchill refused all of the offers to send aid to Bengal, Canada offered 10,000 tons of rice, the U.S 100,000. Churchill was still swilling champaign while he caused four million men, women and children to starve to death in Bengal. Throughout WW2 India was forced to ‘lend’ Britain money. Churchill moaned about “Indian money lenders” the whole time. The truth is Churchill never waged war against fascism. He went to war with Germany to defend the British Empire. He moaned “are we to incur hundreds of millions of debt for defending India only to be kicked out by the Indians afterwards”. In 1945 Churchill said “the Hindus were race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is due”. The Bengal famine wasn’t enough for Churchill’s blood lust, he wished his favourite war criminal Arthur Harris could have bombed them. When India was partitioned in 1947 millions of people died and millions more were displaced. Churchill said that the creation of Pakistan, which has been an imperialist outpost for the British and Americans since its inception, was Britain’s “bit of India”. Iran: “A prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams” — Churchill on Iran’s oil When Britain seized Iran’s oil industry Churchill proclaimed it was “a prize from fairyland beyond our wildest dreams”. He meddled in Iranian affairs for decades doing his utmost to exclude Iranians from their natural resources. Encouraging the looting of the nation when most lived in severe poverty. In June 1914 Churchill proposed a bill in the House of Commons that would see the British government become become the major shareholder of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company would go on to refrain from paying Iran its share of the dividends before paying tax to the British exchequer. Essentially the British were illegally taxing the Iranian government. When the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh threatened British ‘interests’ in Iran, Churchill was there, ready to protect them at any cost. Even if that meant desecrating democracy. He helped organise a coup against Mosaddegh in August 1953. He told the CIA operations officer that helped carry out the plan “if i had been but a few years younger, I would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture”. Churchill arranged for the BBC to send coded messages to let the Shah of Iran know that they were overthrowing the democratically elected government. Instead of the BBC ending their Persian language news broadcast with “it is now midnight in London” they under Churchill’s orders said “it is now exactly midnight”. Churchill went on to privately describe the coup as “the finest operation since the end of the war [WW2]”. Being a proud product of imperialism he had no issue ousting Mosaddegh so Britain could get back to sapping the riches of Iran. Iraq: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against the uncivilized tribes… it would spread a lively terror.” — Churchill on the use of gas in the Middle East and India Churchill was appointed ‘Secretary of State for the Colonies’ in 1921. He formed the ‘Middle East Department’ which was responsible for Iraq. Determined to have his beloved empire on the cheap he decided air power could replace ground troops. A strategy of bombing any resistance to British rule was now employed. Several times in the 1920s various groups in the region now known as Iraq rose up against the British. The air force was then put into action, indiscriminately bombing civilian areas so to subdue the population. Churchill was also an advocate for the use of mustard and poison gases. Whilst ‘Secretary for War and Air’ he advised that “the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs” should be used “for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes” in order to take control of Iraq. When Iraqi tribes stood up for themselves, under the direction of Churchill the British unleashed terror on mud, stone and reed villages. Churchill’s bombing of civilians in ‘Mesopotamia’ (Kurdistan and Iraq) was summed up by war criminal ‘Bomber Harris’: “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape”. — Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris. Ireland: “We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English” — Churchill In 1904 Churchill said “I remain of the opinion that a separate parliament for Ireland would be dangerous and impractical”. Churchill’s ancestry is linked to loyalism to Britain. He is a direct descendent of the ‘Marquis of Londonderry’ who helped put down the 1798 United Irishmen rising. He would live up to his families reputation when it came to suppressing revolutionary forces in Ireland. The Black and Tans were the brainchild of Churchill, he sent the thugs to Ireland to terrorise at will. Attacking civilians and civilian property they done Churchill proud. Rampaging across the country carrying out reprisals. He went on to describe them as “gallant and honourable officers”. It was also Churchill who conceived the idea of forming the Auxiliaries who carried out the Croke Park massacre. They fired into the crowd at a Gaelic football match, killing 14. Of course this didn’t fulfill Churchill’s bloodlust to repress a people who he described as “odd” for their refusal “to be English”. He went on to advocate the use of air power in Ireland against Sinn Fein members in 1920. He suggested to his war advisers that aeroplanes should be dispatched with orders to use “machine-gun fire or bombs” to “scatter and stampede them”. Churchill was an early advocate for the partitioning of Ireland. During the treaty negotiations he insisted on retaining navy bases in Ireland. In 1938 those bases were handed back to Ireland. However in 1939 Churchill proposed capturing Berehaven base by force. In 1941 Churchill supported a plan to introduce conscription in the North of Ireland. Churchill went on to remark”the bloody Irish, what have they ever done for our wars”, reducing Ireland’s merit to what it might provide by way of resources (people) for their imperialist land grabs. Kenya: Britain declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalised racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population. Churchill being your archetypical British supremacist believed that Kenya’s fertile highlands should be only for white colonial settlers. He approved the forcible removal of the local population, which he termed “blackamoors”. At least 150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people on Churchill’s watch. In 1954 during a British cabinet meeting Churchill and his men discussed the forced labour of Kenyan POWs and how to circumvent the constraints of two treaties they were breaching: “This course [detention without trial and forced labour] had been recommended despite the fact that it was thought to involve a technical breach of the Forced Labour Convention of 1930 and the Convention on Human Rights adopted by the Council of Europe” The Cowan Plan advocated the use of force and sometimes death against Kenyan POWs who refused to work. Churchill schemed to allow this to continue. Caroline Elkins book gives a glimpse into the extent that the crimes in Kenya were known in both official and unofficial circles in Britain and how Churchill brushed off the terror the colonial British forces inflicted on the native population. He even ‘punished’ Edwina Mountbatten for mentioning it, “Edwina Mountbatten was conversing about the emergency with India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the then colonial secretary, Oliver Lyttleton. When Lyttleton commented on the “terrible savagery” of Mau Mau… Churchill retaliated, refusing to allow Lord Mountbatten to take his wife with him on an official visit to Turkey”. Palestine: “I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger.” In 2012 Churchill was honoured with a statue in Jerusalem for his assistance to Zionism. He regarded the Arab population Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”. And that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine. In 1920 Churchill declared “if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”. A year later in Jerusalem he told Palestinian leaders that “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?”. At the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel) of 1937, Churchill stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”. He went on to also express to the Peel Commission that he does “not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place”. Four years later he wrote of his desire for a ‘Jewish state’to be established after the second war world. The establishment of the colonial settler state however was done by the British Labour Party under Attlee, who were always there to back their Tory counterparts when it came to British foreign policy. Russia: Churchill’s hatred and paranoia about communism saw him suggest that an atomic bomb should be dropped on the Kremlin. He believed this would “handle the balance of power”. Saudi Arabia: “My admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us.” — Churchill Prior to 1922 the British were paying Ibn Saud a subsidy of £60,000 a year. Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, raised it to £100,000. Churchill knew full well of the dangers of wahhabism. He gave a speech to the House of Commons in 1921 where he stated that Ibn Saud’s followers “hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets… [they are] austere, intolerant, well-armed and bloodthirsty”. He was however content to use the House of Saud’s twisted ideology for the benefit of British imperialism. Churchill went on to write that his “admiration for him [Ibn Saud] was deep, because of his unfailing loyalty to us”. He showered Ibn Saud with money and presents — gifting Ibn Saud a special Rolls-Royce in the mid 1940s. South Africa: Thousands were sent to British run concentration camps during the Boer wars. Churchill summed up his time in South Africa by saying “it was great fun galloping about”. Churchill wrote that his only “irritation” during the Boer war was “that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”. It was Churchill who planted the seed to strip voting rights from black people in South Africa. In June 1906, Churchill argued that Afrikaners should be allowed a self-rule which would mean black people would be excluded from voting. He went on to state to Parliament that “we must be bound by the interpretation which the other party places on it and it is undoubted that the Boers would regard it as a breach of that treaty if the franchise were in the first instance extended to any persons who are not white”. In conclusion: There have been a number of attempts to rehabailtate the image of the British Empire in Britain in recent years. Particularly via the medium of cinema. The film Darkest Hour didn’t show you anything about Churchill’s crimes. On the contrary it presented him as a hero. Gary Oldham won an Oscar for his portrayal of one of the most evil, imperialists ever. British Nationalist groups in Britain hold Churchill up as their posterboy. And so they should. He was a racist to the core. In response to migration from the Caribbean to Britain he said England should “be kept white”. Throughout worl war two his cabinet obsessed over British people viewing American Black GI’s favourably. They were concerned that they would fraternised with white English women. A true believer in white supremacy, Churchill blamed the Native American and Aboriginal Australian people for their genocides. He said he did “not admit that a great wrong has been done to the red Indians and the black people of Australia.” Winner of the Noble Prize in Literature, Churchill actually plagiarised his most well known speech from an Irish Republican called Robert Emmet who was hanged and then beheaded by the British in 1803. Winston’s famous “we shall fight them on beaches” line was lifted from Emmet’s speech from the dock. When it came to his own fellow Brits he was less than complimentary and displayed a deep hatred for the working classes. He suggested “100,000 degenerate Britons should be forcibly sterilised”. And that for “tramps and wastrels there ought to be proper labour colonies where they could be sent”. It needs to be put once and for all that Churchill was despicable, racist, war criminal. Some will argue his “sins” are expiated for his actions during the second world war. It is nothing but nonsense to suggest Churchill went out to fight fascism. He lauded Mussolini as a “roman genius”, donated to Nazi war criminal Erich Von Manstien’s criminal defence and sought to desperatly cling on to the British Empire from which Hitler himself took inspiration for his Reich. What we have to remember is Churchill was not a uniquely villianous British Prime Minister. He was not out of ordinary but in fact a true representation of Britain. https://medium.com/@write_12958/the-crimes-of-winston-churchill-c5e3ecb229b3
    MEDIUM.COM
    The crimes of Winston Churchill
    Churchill was a genocidal maniac. He is fawned over in Britain and held up as a hero of the nation — voted ‘Greatest Briton’ of all time…
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 17764 Ansichten
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight
    Debbie Lerman
    When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on?

    In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    The analysis will show that:

    The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction.
    These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing.
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees.

    In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

    Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses.

    That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.”

    Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible.

    In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines.

    Military Acquisition

    The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next.

    You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.”

    This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society.

    In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense.

    Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref]

    What are “OTA authorities?”

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA)

    (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.)

    The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    What types of transactions are we talking about?

    First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws.

    Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.”

    The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are

    …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces.

    In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations.

    In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.”

    What About OTAs for Medical Products?

    In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.”

    Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.”

    Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below.

    But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark.

    Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

    DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract.

    In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement:

    The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction]

    So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process.

    Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above.

    Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes?

    For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose.

    Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA?

    Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization.

    What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?”

    According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

    In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud.

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

    EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague.

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues,

    The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

    You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction).

    Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines:

    The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes.

    This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA.

    And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe.

    No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA

    Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination.

    This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA:

    Criteria for issuance of authorization

    An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition
    Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that
    The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition
    The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s)
    There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product
    In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.”

    It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above).

    PREP Act

    If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection.

    This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable.

    Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people.

    What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration?

    Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary:

    In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors.

    As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection.

    Conclusion

    The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations:

    Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA.
    The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA.
    FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product.
    The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action.
    That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted.

    Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right?

    So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes.

    But what about the government?

    Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway?

    Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations?

    In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt:

    The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%.
    The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower.
    The IFR for children was near zero.
    [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref]

    A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections.

    I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability.

    Acknowledgements

    Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information.

    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.

    Author

    Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA.

    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/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. 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. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. 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/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 11248 Ansichten
Suchergebnis