John H. Bryan - The MOST Ignorant WV Cops Yet! | Exclusive Bodycam | LAWSUIT Inbound:

https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2024/05/03/the-most-ignorant-wv-cops-yet-exclusive-bodycam-lawsuit-inbound/

#BoundaryDispute #PrestonCounty #WestVirginia #PoliceMisconduct #Malfeasance #Lies #ExcessiveForce #ArrestWarrant #Warrant #FalseArrest #FloridaVJardines #Jardines #Curtilage #FourthAmendment #DefundThePolice #Lawsuit #CivilRights #ConstitutionalRights #Law

DNA contamination in Covid vaccines DOES get into human cells, new evidence shows
It also appears that the contamination enters the cell nucleus and integrates with human DNA

Rebekah Barnett
Regulators and fact checkers claim that plasmid DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid vaccines can’t change your genomic DNA, but new evidence suggests that it actually can.

The fact checkers assert that DNA contamination poses no risk to your genomic DNA because your body will naturally destroy any contaminant DNA before it even gets into the cells.

Even if the contaminant DNA could get into cells, there’s no way it can enter the cell nucleus, where genomic integration events occur, they say.

And even if the contaminant DNA could enter the nucleus, which it can’t, it still couldn’t genomically integrate unless specific enzymes are present, they say.

However, results from independent lab testing conducted on ovarian cancer cell lines show that contaminant DNA from Pfizer’s Covid vaccine not only crossed into the cells, but that it survived multiple cell divisions. This is suggestive that the contaminant DNA is able to transfect (enter) the cell nucleus, and that it integrated with the human cell DNA.

TLDR

1. Scientists claim that Pfizer vaccine contaminant DNA has been detected in ovarian cancer cell line DNA, but they do not yet know if it’s chromosomal (heritable) or extra-chromosomal DNA (not heritable)

2. This is an in vitro (in a lab dish) finding, and needs to be replicated in vivo (in a human patient)

3. As the finding is specific to cancer cell lines, it is not generalisable, but scientists say it may give an indication of what cancer patients in remission could experience after mRNA Covid vaccination

4. This finding calls into question fact checker claims that mRNA Covid vaccine DNA contamination can't enter cells, can't enter the nucleus, and cannot integrate with human DNA.
Last year, Boston-based genomics scientist Kevin McKernan made the shocking discovery that the mRNA Covid vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of plasmid DNA, an artefact of the vaccine production process.

McKernan’s findings were soon confirmed by multiple independent labs around the world for both the Pfizer and Moderna mono- and bi-valent vaccines, including lots approved for children, with one Canadian study led by Dr David Speicher concluding that there are “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose.”

Scientists including McKernan, University of South Carolina cancer genomics scientist Dr Phillip Buckhaults, and Dr Wafik El-Diery, head of the Cancer Centre at Brown University, expressed concerns that fragments of plasmid DNA contamination could cause adverse events, autoimmune problems and cancers in some patients.

But perhaps most significantly, there is also a theoretical risk of the contaminant DNA integrating with patients’ chromosomal DNA and modifying the human genome. This is of particular concern with the Pfizer vaccine, which contains an SV40 enhancer sequence, used in gene therapies “to drive DNA into the nucleus,” explains McKernan.

While regulators have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach, independent scientists, including McKernan, have been more proactive, initiating experiments testing for evidence of genomic integration.

Now, the first results are in.

In an experiment conducted together with German molecular biologist Dr Ulrike Kämmerer, McKernan has detected vaccine contaminant DNA in ovarian cancer cell lines treated with Pfizer’s Covid vaccine.

The scientists found a chimeric combination of human ovarian cell line DNA and spike sequence DNA derived from the contaminating plasmid at at least one, and possibly two sites.

“If anything, this work has put to bed the question regarding if this contaminant DNA gets into the cell, and the chimeric human and contaminant spike DNA sequences imply it has entered the nucleus,” McKernan says.

“The PCR and sequencing data both demonstrate the vaccine is getting into the cell and surviving cell passaging. It is likely bioactive and being partially replicated.”

To reach this finding, Dr Kämmerer first treated ovarian cancer cell lines with mRNA Covid vaccines, using cells treated with AstraZeneca and Janssen vaccines as controls.

The cells were then ‘passaged’, meaning they were left to divide and replicate numerous times. This has the effect of “rinsing away residual vaccine,” explains McKernan.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was then performed, a staining process that Dr Kämmerer used to detect levels of spike protein expression produced by the vaccine modified-RNA.

This was to confirm that the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) carrying mod-RNA and plasmid DNA contamination “did their job and delivered the payload,” says McKernan. Measuring how many cells expressed spike protein also allowed the scientists to determine how much of the vaccine to treat the cells with.


Immunohistochemistry performed with Pfizer top left, AstraZeneca top right as a control. Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack
Cell lines were then sent in cold storage to McKernan’s Boston lab, where his team used qPCR to screen which samples to sequence the cell line DNA.

“What we found is, [contaminant] DNA that is getting transfected into ovarian cancer cell lines is replicating in the cells,” says McKernan, noting that the ratio of vaccine contaminant DNA to human cell DNA was “higher than we expected.”

Chimeric sequences of human and vaccine contaminant DNA were detected at two sites: chromosomes 9 and 12, with the evidence for the latter being the strongest. “But we don't know if it's extra-chromosomal or whether it's chromosomal because of the Illumina (short read) method we used to sequence,” explains McKernan.


Source: Kevin McKernan’s Substack
Extra-chromosomal DNA is not part of the chromosome, and is therefore less likely to replicate and to be heritable. Chromosomal DNA, on the other hand, is heritable and more likely to be replicated. A third category, mitochondrial DNA, is heritable, but only from the maternal line.

You can read a detailed account of methods and findings via McKernan’s Substack article, ‘Vaccine targeted qPCR of Cancer Cell Lines treated with BNT162b2.’

‘Major advance,’ but clinical implications are limited

McKernan emphasises that these findings cannot be generalised, stating that “it is too early to make comments on the clinical implications.”

“The study is performed in ovarian cancer cell lines. It is not performed in patient cells, but this is a proxy for what might happen in an ovarian cancer patient who's in remission,” says McKernan, especially as there is evidence that the LNPs go to the ovaries.

The risk for patients in this scenario is that integration events with contaminant DNA might cause aberrant cell growth, which poses a risk to immune suppression of new cancer cells.

McKernan notes that his experiment only picked up on putative integration events that persisted after multiple cell replications. That is to say, the scientists were not able to detect integration events that may have occurred, but then died off immediately.

At the moment, no one knows how many integration events might be occurring, or what effect that would have on patients. “The unknowns are just exponential,” says McKernan.

The cancer cell line experiment can be said to be “a microcosm of genome integration of contaminated DNA,” said Japanese molecular oncology scientist Hiroshi Arakawa, in his own analysis of McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s experiment, published to his popular science blog on which he shares critical views on Covid vaccine safety.

Akira calls the two possible integrations observed in Dr Kämmerer’s experiment a “major advance” laying the ground for further experimentation. “What happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells, and a wide variety of abnormalities can occur depending on the site of genome integration,” such as “the induction of cancer or malignant transformation,” he wrote (translated from Japanese to English).

LNPs deliver contaminant DNA straight to the cells

A key assumption underlying claims that mRNA Covid vaccine contamination cannot enter the cell nucleus, and cannot genomically integrate with host DNA, is that the contamination will never make it into dividing cells, which would be required for integration to occur.

This is based on the assumption that the LNPs containing both mod-RNA and contaminant DNA mostly stay in the muscle at the injection site. As muscle cells do not divide, there’s no problem, the logic goes.

This is misleading, however, as Pfizer’s own biodistribution data shows that the LNPs enter the blood and every major organ system, including the ovaries, as mentioned above. While it is true that muscle cells don’t divide, LNPs distributed around the body can transfect any number of dividing cells in various organ systems.


Table 4-2. shows biodistribution of LNPs, Pfizer Nonclinical Evaluation Report, 2021
From there, it’s only a matter of time before the LNP contents get into the cell nucleus, says McKernan. “In any dividing cell, the nucleus dissolves. So, when people say the DNA can get into the cytoplasm [inside the cell membrane] but won't get into the nucleus, well, in any dividing cell, it will end up getting into the nucleus.”

It is possible that the dissolution of the cell nucleus during division is the mechanism underlying McKernan and Dr Kämmerer’s observed passaging of contaminant DNA, but further research will be required to confirm or disprove this hypothesis.

Because of the effectiveness of LNPs in delivering their contents into cells, McKernan, Dr Buckhaults and Dr Speicher have questioned the suitability of the current regulatory limits on contaminant DNA in vaccines, which were set prior to the introduction of LNP technology in vaccines.

Regulators unconcerned

I sent McKernan’s Substack article documenting the new DNA integration findings to Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for comment.

The TGA did not address the new findings, but a spokesperson from the TGA responded,

“The Department of Health and Aged Care has every confidence in the safety, quality and efficacy of the various approved COVID-19 vaccines for use in Australia. The TGA’s assessment of all vaccines is based upon high quality evidence, including studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed scientific and clinical journals.”

However, when asked previously to provide evidence for its position that Covid vaccines pose no risk of DNA integration, the TGA provided no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support its claims.

Instead, the TGA provided links to a Mayo Clinic fact page with no scientific citations, an article by the discredited RMIT FactLab, and a scientific commentary article suggesting that in vitro findings cannot be generalised.

Furthermore, TGA has not been forthcoming with the evidence it does hold. When asked to release Covid vaccine batch testing results under Freedom of Information, the regulator provided all 74 pages - fully redacted.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied that contaminant DNA in the mRNA vaccines can enter the nucleus or pose any threat to patients’ genomic DNA, in a response to concerns raised by Florida Surgeon General, Dr Joseph A. Ladapo in December of last year.

Additionally, the FDA misleadingly refuted the presence of SV40 proteins in the vaccines, when in fact Dr Ladapo raised concerns over the presence of an SV40 enchancer sequence in the Pfizer vaccine, as confirmed by Health Canada and numerous independent laboratories.

Such ham-fisted mischaracterisation of a gene therapy sequence by the FDA is suggestive of either gross incompetence, or a disinformation play. Both are concerning.

Science journalist Maryanne Demasi reported, in November last year, that the FDA shut down her enquiries into the DNA contamination matter, refusing to confirm if it found levels of DNA that exceeded acceptable levels, or if it was investigating further.

The presence of contamination has been officially acknowledged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Health Canada, with the latter also acknowledging the presence of the SV40 enhancer sequence, though both regulators deny that the amounts exceed regulatory limits, or that the DNA contamination poses any risk.

‘No excuse’ for ignoring ‘screaming hot signal’

Instead of denying excessive DNA levels and deferring to manufacturers’ reported test results, regulators should run their own qPCR testing on batch lots, says McKernan.

Then, “they would see what everyone else is seeing, which is that sometimes the CT scores come out as low as 13… that’s a screaming hot signal.”

“As a reference, the Covid test would call people positive at 33-35,” McKernan explains. “That’s a million-fold difference (20 CTs). A million-fold less Covid RNA and you're positive and quarantined. But you can inject a million-fold more past your mucosa?”

There’s “no excuse” for regulators to not sequence every vaccine lot, says McKernan, when the costs for doing so have dropped dramatically in recent years.

“DNA sequencing costs have dropped 100,000 fold in the last decade. They have relaxed the DNA contamination limits 1000-fold in this time frame. It likely only costs $1,000 in reagents for millions-to-billions of dollars worth of product.”


Source: National Human Genome Research Institute
DNA sequencing by regulatory agencies is important not just for measuring quantities, says McKernan, but also for determining the type of DNA contamination.

“Not all DNA is created equal. Some is designed to replicate - when it gets into a cell, it can make more of itself. It's a massive loophole in the regulations that they don't do sequencing. But it's never been cheaper. You can precisely know the nature of the DNA in every single vial.”

Scientists pick up regulators’ slack

In the absence of any regulatory appetite for investigating the risks of DNA contamination in the mRNA Covid shots, and particularly the risk of genomic integration, independent scientists have taken the baton.

“We are writing up our findings and will publish a preprint soon,” says McKernan, who is planning further testing in partnership with Dr Kämmerer. “We’re doing more experiments first. We need to sequence deeper to find out if the integration events are in chromosomal or extra-chromosomal DNA.”

Dr Buckhaults is also running his own experiment, calling for de-identified samples of tumours or fresh blood from pathology and hematology labs. These samples will be tested for the presence of plasmid DNA contamination, with whole genome sequencing to then be carried out on positive samples to identify genomic integration sites.

In an email outlining his experiment, Dr Buckhaults told me that he intends to report his findings in a peer-reviewed publication, predicting that the work could take “a few months to a year,” depending on how fast samples come in.

“I am hopeful to prove my concerns are unwarranted by accumulating a lot of negative data, and of course negative data takes the most time to collect,” he said.

McKernan says he is aware of other labs running tests for contaminant plasmid DNA integration, but cannot disclose the details at present.

Decentralisation the future of science?

McKernan says he has experienced some pushback for publishing his methods and findings in real time via Substack, X, and preprints. But, he believes that making his data available as quickly as possible is a way for the field of science to regain public trust.

“Many will criticize our disclosure of preliminary findings but we feel this is an insult to the intelligence of the average person,” says McKernan.

“It's a form of scientific elitism that implies people can't handle the truth and will be scared like sheep if given a glimpse of how the true scientific process is performed. Scientists are 90% of the time wrong but only publish the times when they are right. There is no journal of negative results.“

In light of the prospect that most published research findings are false (as famously asserted in a 2005 article by Professor John Ioannidis), McKernan questions the value of peer-review, instead favouring replication or refutation in the real world.


Source: X
For this reason, McKernan says he has not prioritised peer-reviewed publication for his DNA contamination findings, but is rather focusing on conducting more experiments and releasing the data as he goes - even when it’s incomplete, or requires further experimentation.

“We were not expecting to find any integration events at this depth of coverage, but they are evident to anyone who downloads our public reads. To not speak to obvious evidence in such data would be irresponsible even when such evidence doesn't 100% answer a given question,” says McKernan.

Dr Buckhaults takes a somewhat different view. After sharing his initial plasmid DNA contamination findings in a South Carolina Senate hearing in September last year, the video recording broke the internet.

Believing the hearing to have been private, Dr Buckhaults was alarmed that the widespread distribution of his testimony may have caused “unintended, harmful side effects.” He requested that YouTube take down his testimony video, which is now defunct.


Source: X
In our correspondence, Dr Buckhaults stressed that while more research is warranted, he is of the opinion that the public “should not overreact to the news of the plasmid DNA contamination. It's serious enough that scientists need to hustle and figure out if it's causing any health problems now or down the road, but it's not cause for the general public to be alarmed.”

But, “The reality is that`transfection experiments with contaminated DNA' have been carried out on vast numbers of people around the world in the name of vaccination,” writes Arakawa.

Perhaps the experiment participants will be the ones to decide if they should be alarmed, or not.

The FDA was contacted for comment about Dr Kämmerer and McKernan’s new findings, but they did not respond by publication deadline. This article will be updated if comment is received.

View Kevin McKernan’s write up of his DNA integration experiment (in partnership with Dr Kämmerer) here. Scroll down for links to sequencing data files.

Pathology and hematology labs wishing to send samples to Dr Buckhaults are invited to contact him at the University of South Carolina.

Update 23 March 2024: This article was edited to add mention of the Dr David Speicher et al. finding of “billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose” of the mRNA vaccines, and the scientists’ concerns that regulatory limits on DNA contamination have not taken LNP transfection into account.


To support my work, make a one-off contribution to DDU via my Kofi account and/or subscribe. Thanks!

Follow me on X

Follow me on Instagram

1
From an article I wrote for Umbrella News on this topic last year:

The TGA maintains that allegations put forward in the case about the potential for mRNA vaccines to alter the recipient’s DNA are unfounded. A spokesperson for the TGA told Umbrella News,

“COVID-19 vaccines do not alter a person’s DNA. The mRNA in the vaccines does not enter the nucleus of cells and is not integrated into the human genome. Thus, the mRNA does not cause genetic damage or affect the offspring of vaccinated individuals.”

“The TGA continues to monitor the scientific literature associated with the SARS – CoV-2 virus and the various COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Australia.”

With reference to the specific studies cited in the case materials, the TGA pointed Umbrella News to an RMIT ABC Fact Check post from 2022 purporting to ‘debunk’ claims that mRNA jabs are genotoxic. This is the same site that ‘debunked’ claims that COVID vaccines can cause menstrual disruption, before peer-reviewed scientific studies proved that they can and do (the post has not been corrected).

As evidence that it is “well established” that vaccine mRNA and protein do not enter the nucleus, the TGA provided a link to a Mayo Clinic fact page which provides no studies or scientific evidence in support of its claims.

The TGA did provide one commentary article published in a scientific journal which pointed out that the in vitro liver cell line study cannot be extrapolated to generalise about in vivo findings (in a human, not a dish) without further research being undertaken.

Additionally, RMIT FactLab was suspended by Facebook in August 2023 after an uproar over its blatantly biased and factually dubious ‘fact checking’ of media articles relating to the Voice referendum campaign. It also transpired that RMIT FactLab had falsely represented its accreditation with the International Fact-Checking Network as current, when it had in fact lapsed.


https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/dna-contamination-in-covid-vaccines

The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.

The Epoch Times

Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

By Yuhong Dong

The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date.

Summary of Key Facts

This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006.
In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward.
International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1.
The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury.

In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm.

The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries.

More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence.

Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome.

While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus.

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

Order Now

What is HPV?

According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S.

HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified.

HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms.

HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses.

HPV-associated cancers

High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers.

Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers.

An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers.

Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper.

Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease.

In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men.

But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems.

Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses.

The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests.

HPV vaccines

Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA.

The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious.

Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.”

Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18).

On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer.

In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26.

Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers.

Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58).

The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first.

For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient.

The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection.

The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active.

HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries

U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events

On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008.

During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious.

VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups.

Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines.

A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively.

The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders.

Australia HPV vaccines adverse events

In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006.

Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine.

1 vaccine adverse events australia chart
In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.”

2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart
In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care.
Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged

In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%.

Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.”

The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.”

In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths.

However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued?

Ovarian insufficiency

Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature.

In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.”

VAERS analysis on ovarian failure

Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations.

The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination.

The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%).

Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46.

The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns.

For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk.

But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination.

In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”).

Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link.

The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.”

However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform.

Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear.

3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency

In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination.

As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency.

One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency.

Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause.

She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal.

The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system.

However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating.

The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms.

Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link

A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years.

The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96.

One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course.

The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency.

Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland.

If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/


https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html

Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
global moratorium mrna covid vaccine feature
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.

Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.

The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.

After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.

Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials.

They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.”

They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters.

“It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote.

Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies.

It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender.

“Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added.

According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.”

Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.”

Here are six takeaways from the review:

1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner

Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years.

To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote.

The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease.

However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines.

There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.

The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself.

The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.”

The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added.

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

Order Now

2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy

Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do.

“No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote.

Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.”

Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19.

There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%.

The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety.

Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote.

Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine.

The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate.

One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large.

According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility.

While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively.

“A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote.

As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death.

However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote.

And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”

They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19.

One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19.

A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues.

3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data.

Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here.

First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group.

“Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked.

Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population.

None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote.

Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended.

During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data.

And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports.

Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.”

In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.”

This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.”

4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary.

Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population.

The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants.

Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.”

After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke.

And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.

Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system.

In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems.

The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious.

In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal.

“The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.”

5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems.

Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs.

Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues.

That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids.

Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown.

McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns.

Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time

This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown.

6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness.

The review points readers to a series of papers that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

“The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection.

They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself.

They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientists-global-moratorium-mrna-vaccines-removal-childhood-schedule/


https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html

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: Part Two
Debbie Lerman
In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products 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.
In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway

The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract.

It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway 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.”

[BOLDFACE ADDED]

A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use.

If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down:

Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects

This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces.

According to the DARPA website,

The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs.

These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production.

Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply:

Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.”
OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.”
So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use.

Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines?

The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.”

This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN).

What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities:


According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e.

Where is this law housed and what does it say?

The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities

So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly—

(i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and

(ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title.

[BOLDFACE ADDED]

The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight.

HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular:

OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.
The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.
Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.
In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

So what did HHS do?

As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24)

What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.”

But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced:

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.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration]

As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg.

The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].”

Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS.

While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.”

Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all.

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers:

Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents.

With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).

It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents.

As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic.

The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued:

a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;
a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—
a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or
an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;
a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or
the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.
Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent?

If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway:

Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions

So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime.

Wikipedia provides this definition:

A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW).

On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines?

It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen.

Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines.

Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was

C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.

When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded:

the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…

There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.”

It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic.

So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists.

Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases.

Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization

Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements:

Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition
For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.

NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime.

Evidence of Effectiveness
Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b).

The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below.

[BOLDFACE ADDED]

LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals?

Risk-Benefit Analysis
A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge.

[BOLDFACE ADDED]

LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.”

No Alternatives
For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need.

LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal?

Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines:

I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because:

SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus;
Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and
There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19.
[BOLDFACE ADDED]

NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19.

There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19.

THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced.

If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims?

Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation.

Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this:

FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must:

(1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information;

(2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information;

(3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and

(4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer.

LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization?

NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports.

EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment.

Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use.

The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures.


Comparison of Access Mechanisms
This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board.

Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28:

It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process.

Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS?

Conclusion

It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.

Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required.

Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications?

I hope so.

Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind.

Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued:

The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency.

This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process.

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-part-two/

Look what they did to Reiner Fuellmich! He’s a political prisoner in Nazi Germany!

Update: Reiner Füellmich Speaks Out. His Personal Statement & Press Release From The Defence.


Update: Reiner Füellmich Speaks Out. His Personal Statement & Press Release From The Defence.
Patricia HarrityDecember 27, 2023

Dr Reiner Füellmich has been imprisoned for almost 11 weeks now. He has written his own personal account, part one of which was read aloud on Bittel TV and translated. He had said “It isn’t over.” The corona pandemic was only the test run to find out what people will go along with when we put them into panic through psycho-terror. We must look behind the panic propaganda, so we can see the truth.” He added “Without justice there is no peace and no returning to a humane world. That also holds for my case.” The English translation of part one can be found here.

The official translation for parts 2 and 3 from the Reiner Füellmich team were received by Elsa Scheider from the Truth Summit last week and have been republished below for our readers who have shown a concern and interest in Reiner’s situation Source . This is followed by the press release from the defense team published on 23rd December.

“The Truth” – Personal Statement by Dr. Reiner Füellmich’

Part 2: The beginning of the Corona Committee

Dear friends, activists, and fellow human beings interested in the truth.

This is the 2nd part of my “Personal Statement” to make the events of the last weeks, months and years transparent for all of you.

How did it come about that serious allegations of embezzlement were made against me publicly and in a criminal complaint by four former comrades-in-arms in the Corona Committee? Who were the people I trusted when I worked with the Corona Committee? How did it come about that I am now sitting in a high-security prison in Germany – and completely innocent?

Above all, I have to reproach myself, because my professional gut feeling clearly betrayed me (or I didn’t listen closely enough), and I simply didn’t attend enough to details in the daily TO-DOs, otherwise I would have noticed the planned coup much earlier.

But first things first:

My wife Inka and I lived with our dogs on our ranch in Northern California until the beginning of June 2020 and I did my legal work mainly from there. When the plandemic started in 2020, we were both immediately convinced – that something was amiss here. I quickly packed my bags, because I wanted to help shed light on the plandemic in Germany. After all, I had 30 years of experience as a litigator and spent many years studying medical and pharmaceutical law at the University of Göttingen. In addition, I had many contacts from my work in medical law.

Dr. WW, whom I trusted at the time, put me in touch with Ms. VF. At the first face-to-face meeting in Berlin, I was bothered by some of her behavior, but I decided to take off my critical glasses, ignore my gut feeling and trust a friend.

We agreed to establish the Corona Committee because it was clear in June 2020 that the German Bundestag, which was actually responsible for this, would not start its own investigation, for reasons that were not yet apparent to me at the time. The Corona Committee was to clarify these key questions immediately:

1. How dangerous is the supposedly novel corona virus really?
2. How reliable and suitable is the PCR test for detecting corona infections?
3. How harmful are the Corona measures, i.e. the lockdowns, the mask requirement, social distancing and the threat of so-called vaccinations?
Scientists, doctors, economists, lawyers, politicians, etc. should help support us in clarifying the questions. Two German scientists, a professor of finance and an expert in immunology and vaccinations were already part of our circle. Unfortunately, they did not agree with the contracts of VF drawn up by her notary and therefore they left us.

I recall that one of them also distrusted VF from the start.

We needed replacements quickly. Two years earlier, while working for the anti-corruption NGO Transparency International, I had met law professor Martin Schwab and had been friends with him ever since. He, in turn, had introduced me to two lawyers from Hamburg whom he had promoted. Trusting in Prof. Schwab’s expertise, I asked the two of them if they wanted to move up as a replacement for the scientists in the Corona Committee. Today I know that this was the beginning of the end. Both quickly showed that money meant more to them than clarification and enlightenment.

The Corona Committee quickly met with completely unexpected success. Since we conducted the expert surveys in German and English via video-stream, our Friday broadcasts quickly became popular worldwide. Many people had been convinced that we would later use the findings from these interviews as evidence in international damages proceedings such as in class action. We were in the right place at the right time with our work. I was and still am convinced of that.

Internally, unfortunately, things looked different. I quickly noticed that VF and the others showed little interest in our work in contrast to myself, who concentrated almost completely on this work. In addition to the interviews in the committee, I gave five international interviews at that time, and thereby, endeavored to provide information about our work worldwide and not just in Germany.

After I had learned from critical experts that a PCR test could under no circumstances detect an infection, and it had been deliberately abused here, I published a 50-minute video in German and English in September 2020. There I explained that the Corona measures, which had already led to more and more victims and damage at that time, could be qualified as crimes against humanity, and that it would be best to clarify them legally with the means of Anglo-American law. To my surprise, the video was viewed millions of times before it was suddenly deleted by YouTube/Google.

On the basis of this video, the American colleague Robert F. Kennedy jr., whom I first met in Berlin in August 2020, founded the “PCR Test working group” on his platform CHD, with the help of its president Mary Holland. I also belong to this group. Since October 2020, respected scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc. have been meeting there every week to discuss all aspects related to the plandemic.

At the same time, I regularly summarized our long interviews at the Corona Committee on Sundays on Roger Bittel’s platform “Bittel.TV”. The enormous popularity of the Corona Committee led to a large number of inquiries as early as August 2020. In particular, small and medium-sized enterprises wanted to know how they could get compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the lockdowns. And fellow lawyers from all over the world wanted to be connected with the experts. At that time, many lawyers still believed that a judicial hearing of evidence with our PCR test experts would quickly bring down the entire panic, based on deception and manipulation.

This led to the collection of funds (700 € per person) for a possible class action. The funds are all there, but have been fraudulently diverted to another account. I will report on this in detail elsewhere.

Due to my almost 30 years of litigation experience, I was rather sceptical that a solid legal approach would quickly succeed in Germany and also in the rest of the world. Therefore, I advised to conduct damages litigation in an Anglo-American country, where there is the possibility of class actions and a real right of evidence and punitive damages for intentional damages. My international colleagues are working flat out on this. The issue of class action lawsuits is as present as ever and we are convinced that it will ultimately bring success.


Part 3 – The end of the Corona Committee – Unfortunate circumstances or a long-planned coup?

Dear friends, activists and fellow human beings interested in the truth,

in the 3rd part of my personal statement, it will quickly become apparent to you that I was more and more a lone fighter in matters of the Corona Committee and that my co-partners pulled a common string to get rid of me and also to ruin me privately. I share responsibility here. As a human being, but even more so as a lawyer, I should have seen the events coming and prevented them.

Back to my account. So, while I was on my way, also with international lawyers, for the CA and putting all my energy into it, strangely enough, the other members didn’t seem to be so aware of the importance of the Corona Committee‘s work. None of them attended the strategy meetings. None of them made any effort to publicize the work of the Committee, especially beyond the borders of Germany. From the end of 2020 onwards, JH and AF in particular were only interested in how they could earn as much money as possible with Corona mandates with their newly founded office community.

When, at the end of 2021 / beginning of 2022, together with the group of international lawyers, I conducted the Model Grand Jury investigations with the help of our experts to show that, and how, a legal clarification of the plandemic could work, these lawyers no longer played a role at all. However, the Model Grand Jury Investigation became a success that attracted worldwide attention.

The work of the Corona Committee was now so popular that by the end of 2020 we had already received a lot of donations. However, we only needed part of this to pay for our technology, IT, translators and expenses for my office, etc. There was a large amount of money in our donation account. This money was not safe from our point of view. A blocking or seizure of the accounts would have rendered us immediately incapacitated. Therefore, VF and I decided to leave only the amounts directly required for the work of the Corona Committee in the donation account and to keep the funds that were not needed at first safe from possible access.

The State Office for Criminal Investigation in Lower Saxony, as I know today, had asked the public prosecutor’s office to investigate VF, RF, AF and JH and a colleague who had temporarily managed the donation account because of suspicious money laundering reports from the banks, which had repeatedly terminated our donation account. These investigations were later discontinued.

To make sure that we would not be vulnerable because of the securing of the money, we concluded loan agreements, which were also openly shown in the annual financial statements. Of course, there would have been no point in transferring the loans from one disclosed account to another open account. So we decided to invest them in my German property (as an equivalent value) and in gold as a safe store of value. The house had a value of €1,345,000. We wanted to sell it anyway and look for a new place to live in Germany. Therefore, the money I took out on a loan basis was safe, as I believed at the time. But things turned out differently. I will report on that.

In addition, I invested 1.1 million EUR in donations in gold. This was also openly disclosed in the annual financial statements. VF also entered into a contract with Corona Committee to obtain a loan. This withdrawal also served to secure our money. The loan went over € 100,000 which is also reported in the annual financial statements.

In July / August 2021, JH and AF suddenly contacted us again to get information about the donations. I suspected that their legal efforts had been unsuccessful. In the meantime, I had learned that they had no structure in their office and, in particular, had not even been able to hire at least one secretary. I hadn’t checked this at the beginning of our collaboration, a mistake on my part in hindsight.

Since JH and AF had effectively left the work of the Corona Committee and also because they had recently been working closely with a person who, as I know today, infiltrated the political party “dieBasis” together with a Freemason, we initially refused to provide this information.

But in order not to waste energy on avoidable arguments, we finally handed in an overview of income and expenditures. It quickly became clear that they wanted to “hijack” the Corona Committee and at least eliminate me from it. When the attempt failed, JH proposed in a written settlement that he and AF would leave the company if we pay them half of the donations to an account of their mentor, Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab. Of course, VF and I rejected this and asked JH and AF not to show up in the committee anymore.

We didn’t hear from them for about a year. At the end of 2021, with my consent and with the help of their notary, VF created a new company for the operation of the Corona Committee. VF and I held a 50 percent stake in this company. This new Corona Committee has its own account, so it no longer has to rely on lawyers’ escrow accounts. All the rights of the old company were also transferred to this new company. I agreed to the contracts submitted to me by VF.

At the beginning of 2022, working with VF had become increasingly difficult. That’s why I accepted the offer to participate in the Crimes Against Humanity Tour in the US. This meant that I would spend almost three and a half months traveling through nine U.S. cities and giving lectures with two well-known U.S. scientists, Dr. Judy Mikovits and the economist and expert on technology and transhumanism, Patrick Wood. However, from there I continued all the activities related to the Corona Committee: I continued the interviews via Zoom, gave an average of five interviews per week, participated in the conferences of the PCR Test Working Group and summarised the meetings of the Committee every weekend on Bittel.TV. In addition, I worked with international colleagues to initiate legal proceedings with the aim of large-scale damages lawsuits. At the time, I was on the verge of burnout…

After my return from the U.S., I realized that VF’s chaotic incompetence and indifference to our guests, which I had grudgingly accepted until then, had increased even more. That’s why I confronted her in July 2022. I informed her that I would be going back to our ranch in California with my wife and dogs, also to be closer to the relevant legal action, but that I would continue the committee work as usual. Also, I desperately wanted more input from her!

Immediately afterwards, as I know today, VF got in touch with JH and AF again, as well as their law firm colleague MT. In August 2022, there was a meeting and a discussion. Following this meeting, the joint public defamation campaign against me started on 9-2-.2022 and criminal charges were filed against me on the same day. I didn’t know anything about that at the time. Due to the coincidence of the date of the “dismissal” and the criminal complaint, it is clear to me today that “the other side” was never interested in resolving the disputes.

A week before 9-2-.2022, VF had informed me that there would be no Corona committee broadcast on that day because our TV manager’s wife was going to have her second child. A lie, as I later realized. But I believed that lie and did not appear, VF and WW had – as VF puts it – “a clear shot“ at me. VF appeared in front of the Corona Committee’s camera dramatically dressed in black. She declared, without informing me as her partner, that I was no longer allowed to appear at the Corona Committee. So she decided unilaterally and completely arbitrarily that I was no longer allowed to be present in the Corona Committee that I had shaped until then, in whose company I owned 50 percent then as now!

In order to justify her illegal and unlawful actions, she and WW, also in front of the camera, stated that I was to be accused of financial irregularities and that I was otherwise “a loudmouth”. WW was particularly fond of this label.

I didn’t want to unnecessarily burden the Corona Committee and its worldwide reputation with internal problems. A vain hope.

A short time later, VF, WW, JH, AF and VF’s partner at the time appeared in front of the camera for an hour-long Reiner Fuellmich tribunal. This campaign eventually culminated in several increasingly insane videos from VF claiming that “the children of the committee staff must be starving“ because of me. Apparently completely unhinged, she finally called for a “hunt for me” and crowned this call with a “Halali”, a German hunting call that signals the end of a hunt. Not only I, but also the viewers were shocked, as could be seen from the comments in the chat.

The content of the 30-page criminal complaint, which JH also filed on behalf of AF and MT, reads even crazier. JH, AF and MT knew in 2020 that € 700,000 had been secured by me by loan agreement and secured with my property. They also knew that the sale of my house has been planned for a long time and was imminent. Our property was sold on 03/10/2022 for € 1,345,000.00 in our absence through a notary. As mentioned, we have never seen any of this money to this day! How this coup took place, I will explain in the next part.

And it gets even worse: After receiving the criminal complaint, I should have been heard, in accordance with the principle audiatur et altera pars. But I was denied this. Today I know the reasons: JH claimed to the prosecution that I was threatening him “with a Winchester”. And because that didn’t seem dangerous enough, he went on to claim that I, as a member of the party “dieBasis”, would radicalize other members and call for violence against him. In addition, I was an anti-Semite and he would feel threatened because of his ethnic origin.

Because of these completely fictitious threat scenarios, my wife and I were denied the right to a fair clarification of the situation by the authorities for more than a year. Apparently, the public prosecutor’s office felt pressured by these threat scenarios. JH even told the authorities that the other two plaintiffs would withdraw the criminal complaint if the prosecution granted me a fair hearing. Literally, he writes: “… if Fuellmich or any of the other defendants were given the opportunity to comment before criminal proceedings were initiated, the witnesses (i.e. VF, JH, AF and MT) would refrain from filing the criminal complaint for fear of threats, violence and defamation.”

Subsequently, my wife’s private account was seized. When our lawyers asked for my wife to be heard, they were told that they would not receive any information because she was also under investigation. A European arrest warrant was then issued for me on 3-15-2023, of course without me being granted the right to be heard.

In the meantime, my wife and I had left for a trip to Peru regarding the class action lawsuit. On the way back we wanted to visit friends in Mexico and fly back to Germany from there. There, we received information from our hometown that the authorities were allegedly looking for me. Unfortunately, the colleagues from my law firm did not receive any information from the authorities about the situation. So we couldn’t really assess the new scenario back home, so we stayed in Mexico for the time being.

As a counterpart to the Corona Committee, I now had my own label “ICIC”, with which, as before in the Committee, I interviewed international experts on global crimes against humanity. A small working group from the former Corona Committee had followed me and so we were able to quickly get back to work.

Nevertheless, in October 2023, everything plunged into complete chaos again. It ended with the execution of the above-mentioned European arrest warrant against me in Frankfurt, after I had previously been deported from a non-European country (Mexico) under police protection. – A thriller that, as I know today, was anything but a coincidence. I’ll tell you about that in the next episode.

As a result, I’ve been sitting in prison for weeks now. The real perpetrators are still free. They also possess the class action lawsuit money and the money from my private home. I can prove that. All documents are safely stored with my legal team. How the “agitators” brought all this to a “successful” conclusion for them, I will report on in the next episode. Source

Reiner Füellmich: Press Release From The Defence.


Originally published by Elsa at Truth Summit on 23rd December 2023.

One could say that the truth is boring – meaning, Reiner said basically the same thing a few days after VF spoke against him as he is saying now, and as is stated in the press release from the defense. There are a couple of further details. They add a tiny bit, but nothing is changed.

So here is the press release.

On November 17, 2023 the Göttingen public prosecutor’s office brought charges against Dr. Reiner Füellmich on the basis of a criminal complaint filed by former shareholders without the defense having prior access to all volumes of the investigation file or the opportunity to comment. An interrogation of the accused pursuant to Section 163a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) was also not conducted before the indictment was filed. Likewise, the witnesses named predominantly in the indictment were not questioned.

On the one hand, the sum of €700,000 is at issue, which is already the subject of the arrest warrant. However, the basis for the payment of the €700,000 were two loan agreements also signed by Viviane Fischer (one dated November 6, 2020 for €200,000 and one dated May 14, 2021 for €500,000).

The public prosecutor’s office incorrectly assumed at the time of the indictment that both loan agreements involved inadmissible self-dealing. However, according to the complete founding minutes of July 9, 2020 all four shareholders were appointed as managing directors with sole power of representation, so that Viviane Fischer was able to effectively represent the Corona-Committee-Entrepreneurial-company-in-formation alone in both loan agreements.

At the time, rumors were circulating about the seizure of accounts at MWGFD; in fact, accounts were seized from the prominent member Prof. Dr. Hockertz, as well as subsequently from other doctors who were prosecuted under criminal law on the subject of the corona measures, and finally, as the most prominent example, from Michael Ballweg, who was also remanded in custody for 9 months.

The donations should therefore be invested in sustainable stores of value, such as gold or real estate. The Corona Committee bought around 1 million worth of gold, which is still stored securely at Degussa. Reiner Füellmich’s property was intended as the equivalent value for the loan amount of € 700,000.

At the time of the sale on October 3, 2022, the property was unencumbered and the € 700,000 was to be repaid to the Corona Committee from the purchase price of € 1,345,000. However, this was prevented until today by the entry of a land charge on November 18, 2022, i.e. one and a half months later – in our opinion unlawful – and the payment of an amount of € 1,158,250 in favor of the complainant Marcel Templin. This matter must be clarified, also by the public prosecutor’s office.

It is irrelevant whether amounts were spent on redesigning the garden of the property, as this directly benefited the increase in value and thus the achievement of a higher purchase price.

The indictment also alleges payments made by the Corona Committee to Reiner Füellmich’s law firm in the amount of €25,000 per month plus VAT in the period from January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2022. According to the indictment, these funds were used up for wage and salary payments and social security contributions for the employees of his law firm.

The public prosecutor’s office fails to recognize that the employees of Füellmich’s law firm provided a service in return for these monthly payments to the Corona Committee. For two years, they were almost exclusively occupied with answering inquiries to the Corona Committee. Over 300,000 emails were answered, hundreds to thousands of telephone calls were made and thousands of letters were answered. Due to the sheer volume of emails, a new IT system also had to be purchased. This work, which was absolutely essential for the Committee’s continued existence, was not carried out at the Committee’s headquarters in Berlin.

Communication with the supporters of the Corona Committee included initial legal advice for those seeking help, the acquisition of interview partners, the selection of scientists and other experts, who ultimately had their say at the weekly meetings.

If this communication had not taken place, the Corona Committee could have ceased its work shortly after it was set up.

The services provided by the employees of the Füellmich law firm were therefore part of the committee’s corporate purpose. The witnesses named by the public prosecutor in the indictment for this set of crimes were not heard before the indictment was filed, which is unusual.

Source Truth Summit


Elsa from the Truth Summit adds – PS. To donate for legal and other expenses, here is the link: https://www.givesendgo.com/GBBX2

https://expose-news.com/2023/12/27/update-reiner-fuellmich-speaks-out-his-personal-statement-press-release-from-the-defence/

OIC and Arab League must back South Africa's ICJ case on Israel
People wave Palestinian and Jordanian flags as they march during a demonstration near the US embassy in Amman in solidarity with the people of Gaza on 15 December 2023 (Khalil Mazraawi/AFP)
The OIC and the Arab League have an opportunity to join a historic process that could redefine how international law works and uphold justice
The ongoing war in Gaza has opened a window for Muslim-majority nations to lead by example in upholding the rule of law and justice. This moment presents a chance to respond to their citizens' calls for action and to pursue legal avenues in response to alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Beyond material progress and architectural marvels that rival ancient wonders, a truly progressive state is marked by its commitment to accountability and justice - a domain where some established democracies have faltered.

After enduring a harrowing 85 days of bombardment resulting in nearly 22,000 killed, including more than 8,000 children and 6,000 women, 1.9 million displaced and the collapse of the health infrastructure, South Africa, a signatory of the Genocide Convention has finally called upon the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to examine the crisis.

This long-awaited step reflects a crucial recognition of the international community's role in conflict resolution and human rights protection.

Members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League stand at a pivotal crossroads, where the decision to support South Africa's legal action against Israel at the ICJ could mark a significant step towards upholding international law and justice.

Stay informed with MEE's newsletters

Sign up to get the latest alerts, insights and analysis, starting with Turkey Unpacked

A pivotal crossroads

The Arab League and OIC should urgently make it clear that as organisations they unequivocally support South Africa’s application to the ICJ in the same way as the OIC supported Gambia’s case against Myanmar’s alleged genocide of the Rohingya Muslims.

South Africa's meticulous and legally grounded application to the ICJ presents a profound opportunity for these influential states to endorse a process that seeks to clarify and address serious allegations in a legally constituted forum, free from political interference.

The Arab League and OIC should urgently make it clear that as organisations, they unequivocally support South Africa’s application to the ICJ

South Africa's application to the ICJ is not a mere accusation; it is a comprehensive, 84-page document publicly available on the ICJ’s website, grounded in detailed factual and legal analysis.

This move by South Africa is not, as Israel claims, a form of cooperation with any terrorist organisation or an act of defamation or antisemitism; it is a fulfilment of obligations under the Genocide Convention.

It is an unimpeachable act of responsibility to the international community and the principles of justice and human rights.

Follow Middle East Eye's live coverage of the Israel-Palestine war here

And it could prevent further loss of life through the ICJ issuing urgent provisional measures to Israel.

Accusing Israel of genocide is a serious claim, one that the ICJ is uniquely qualified to assess without political bias. It is crucial to understand that holding a state accountable in international law, as sought by South Africa, is not an act of defamation but a pursuit of justice.

Israel’s claim that such legal actions are akin to "blood libel" is a purposeful and dangerous misrepresentation. No state, including Israel, is above international law.



The British court's decision in 2009 to issue an arrest warrant for an Israeli politician on allegations of war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza is a testament to the necessity of legal scrutiny over political immunity.

Israeli politicians' recent statements, some with potentially genocidal implications, should also be subject to judicial examination. This is not about targeting a nation or a people but ensuring that actions and words are held against the rigour of international law.

Beyond rhetoric

The issue of Hamas and its accountability under international law should also be addressed in a legal setting. Collective punishment of the Palestinian people is not an acceptable response to the actions of a particular group. Both parties should be subject to legal scrutiny when there is evidence of violating international law.


War on Gaza: South Africa launches International Court of Justice case accusing Israel of genocide

Read More »
For the OIC and the Arab League states, supporting South Africa’s initiative at the ICJ is a chance to contribute to a process that upholds justice, due process, and international law. It is an opportunity to move beyond rhetoric and towards a structured legal examination of serious allegations.

No doubt leaders of the OIC and Arab League states condemn Israel’s alleged actions in their hearts. It is better still that they speak out against alleged violations that we see on our screens daily and even better still that they take action and join South Africa at the ICJ in the first step to break Israel’s gifted impunity and hold it accountable for alleged international law violations.

The ICJ operates independently, free from external pressures. Any objections to South Africa’s application should be presented through legal submissions to the court. Attempts to influence the court outside of its legal processes undermine the very principles of justice and impartiality that the court stands for.

The OIC and the Arab League have the opportunity to be part of a historic process that could redefine the application of international law in conflict resolution and uphold the principles of justice and accountability on the global stage.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-on-gaza-oic-arab-league-must-back-south-africa-icj-case-israel

Google announced it will be making important changes to the way it handles “Location History” data. These changes appear to make it much more difficult—if not impossible—for Google to provide mass location data in response to a geofence warrant.

The #NDAA includes an extension of Section 702 of FISA, which allows warrantless surveillance of foreigners and Americans.

Israelis Harvest Human Organs from Massacred Palestinians | VT Foreign Policy

December 5, 2023

VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

In the cover image the ICC Prosecutor Khan in Israel and a mass grave in Palestine

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

About 48 hours after the collapse of the temporary humanitarian truce in Gaza and the resumption of Israeli air, sea, and land attacks on civilian communities in widespread disproportionate raids, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor stated that Israel has intensified its forced displacement plans for Palestinians in the Strip.

Israel is crushing all forms of civilian life in the Gaza Strip, the Geneva-based rights organisation said, and returning residents to the pre-industrial stage by turning the Strip, including its homes, factories, businesses, and infrastructure, into piles of rubble.

1.000 Pepole Killed in the Latest Israeli Mass Murder Massacres

The Euro-Med Monitor team has documented the Israeli mass murder massacres of Saturday 2 December.

The rights group said that Israel targeted entire residential blocks, resulting in more than 1,000 people killed, wounded, or reported missing. This feeds fears of a more ruthless approach to achieving horrific field and political objectives at the cost of civilian lives and property.

«A string of Israeli airstrikes with strong fire belts targeted buildings and inhabited residential blocks yesterday, said Euro-Med Monitor, in Shuja’iya, Jabalia, and Beit Lahia, without prior notice, demolishing them above the heads of their residents and burying dozens beneath the debris» reported Euro-Med Monitor in its website.

The ZIONIST FÜHRER’s Huge Horror Show. UN “Gaza Graveyard for Children, Possible War Crimes”. Top UN Official Resigns vs Israeli Lobby

Rescue workers were informed of hundreds of casualties, including dead, wounded, and missing persons, following the destruction of about 50 residential buildings and houses in the crowded Shuja’iya neighbourhood in eastern Gaza, after simultaneous air and artillery strikes within a very short time.

“Everywhere you turn to, there are childrenwith third-degree burns, shrapnel wounds, brain injuries and broken bones,” James Elder, UNICEF’s global spokesperson, told Al Jazeera from Gaza.

“Mothers crying over children who look like they are hours away from death. It seems like a death zone right now.”

Gaza: SATAN’S HOLOCAUST. No More Words, Images are Enough! A Minute of Silence to Pray. WARNING! Chilling Video

But these massacres aren’t the only war crimes perpetrated by Israel Defense Forces under the orders of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a planned genocide and displacement.

Dozens of Dead Bodies with Evidences of Organs Theft

«Euro-Med Monitor has documented the Israeli army’s confiscation of dozens of dead bodies from Al-Shifa Medical Complex and the Indonesian Hospital in the northern Gaza Strip, and others from the vicinity of the so-called “safe corridor” (Salah al-Din Road) designated for displaced people heading to the central and southern parts of the Strip».

We can read in a report of the lates days published by this humanitarian organizations.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor is a youth-led independent, nonprofit organization that advocates for the human rights of all persons across Europe and the MENA region, particularly those who live under occupation, in the throes of war or political unrest and/ or have been displaced due to persecution or armed conflict.

The Plotted GENOCIDE: Leaked Israeli Plan to Ethnically cleanse Gaza

Euro-Med Monitor was established in November 2011 and is registered in Switzerland (CH-660.0.748.015-1), where it maintains its official headquarters.

“It is important to continue the struggle despite frustrations and disappointment based on an ultimate faith in the triumph of justice” is the slogan spread by Richard Falk, Chairman of Board of Trustees.

«According to Euro-Med Monitor, the Israeli army also dug up and confiscated the bodies from a mass grave that was established more than 10 days ago in one of the Al-Shifa Medical Complex’s courtyards».

«While dozens of corpses were handed over to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in turn transported them to the southern Gaza Strip to complete the burial process, the Israeli army is still holding the bodies of dozens of dead people».

One of the numerous mass graves of the ongoing Palestinians’ genocide

So Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor has called for the creation of an independent international investigation committee into organ theft suspicions.

«Concerns about organ theft from the corpses were brought up by Euro-Med Monitor, which cited reports from medical professionals in Gaza who quickly examined a few bodies after their release. These medical professionals found evidence of organ theft, including missing cochleas and corneas as well as other vital organs like livers, kidneys, and hearts».

Doctors at several Gazan hospitals told the Euro-Med Monitor team that organ theft cannot be proven or disproven solely by forensic medical examination, since multiple bodies underwent surgical procedures prior to death.

They stated that it was impossible for them to conduct a full analytical examination of the recovered corpses given the intense air and artillery attacks and influx of wounded civilians, but they detected several signs of possible organ theft by the Israeli military.

Israel’s Long History on Palestinians Human Organs for BioLabs

«Israel has a long history of holding onto the bodies of dead Palestinians, Euro-Med Monitor said, as it holds the remains of at least 145 Palestinians in its morgues and approximately 255 in its “Numbers Cemetery”, which is near the Jordanian border and off-limits to the public, in addition to 75 missing people who have not been identified by Israel» recalls the Euro-Med report about.

According to the Geneva-based rights organisation, Israel stores the bodies of dead Palestinians in what it refers to as “enemy combatant graves”, which are covert mass graves situated in particular locations such as closed military zones, where interments and burials are secretly conducted. The remains or bodies of the dead are marked only with metal plates.

According to an earlier report by Euro-Med Monitor, Israeli authorities has kept the dead bodies of Palestinians in subfreezing temperatures—sometimes below 40 degrees Celsius—in order to ensure that they remain undisturbed and to possibly hide the theft of organs.

Human Organs’ Traffic in Syria ignored by UN: Sana and CBS videos on White Helmets, Al Qaeda & Turkey Crimes

A vile and illicit practice that became widespread during the Syrian Civil War due to the so-called “White Helmets”, self-styled rescuers financed by the USA and the United Kingdom but reported to the United Nations by Russia as a terrorist organization supporting the jihadists of Al Nusra, the local branch of Al Qaeda, and precisely for international trafficking in human organs which was the subject of an American TV report.

According to the human rights group, Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs.

Russian Soldiers Discover “Baby Factories” in Ukraine! Kids are Grown for Sex Brothels and for Organ Harvesting – Video Interview

One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”. By the end of 2021, the Israeli Knesset (or Parliament) had passed laws allowing the army and police to hold onto the bodies of dead Palestinians.

There have been reports in recent years of the unlawful use of Palestinian corpses held by Israel, including the theft of organs and their use in Israeli university medical school labs.

Israeli doctor Meira Weiss disclosed in her book Over Their Dead Bodies that organs taken from dead Palestinians were utilised in medical research at Israeli universities’ medical faculties and were transplanted into Jewish-Israeli patients’ bodies.

Devastating Raid in GAZA Hospital. Turkish Lawyers blames of  “genocide” Netanyahu: “the 21st century Hitler”

Even more concerning are admissions made by Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine, about the theft of human tissues, organs, and skin from dead Palestinians over a period of time without their relatives’ knowledge or approval.

Israel is thought to be the biggest hub for the illegal global trade in human organs, according to a 2008 investigation by the American CNN network, which also revealed that Israel participated in the theft of organs from dead Palestinians for illegal use.

The Massive Israeli Organ harvesting industry in Ukraine

The international investigative journalist Jeff Brown too has focused a post (and video) on China Rising headlined “Israelis are harvesting organs from massacred Palestinians!”

«James Bradley and I have fully covered the massive Israeli organ harvesting industry in Ukraine and countries like Thailand. Israel has long been the world capital for this crime against humanity» he wrote in China Rising, reporting an alarm already officially denounced by the spokeswoman of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Marija Zacharova.

Zakharova: “The World Leader of Black Transplants: in Ukraine, Organs are traded Online and Offline”

Brown relaunched a previous investigation published on June, 2022 from a report by Vladimir Taranenko.

«”Red Cross” suggest terrible thoughts about what exactly this organization was doing here under the cover of murderers from the national regiment “Azov”» we can read.

«More than 1000 medical records of children with marked healthy organs, information about diseases in the cards is not contained. That is, the employees of the “Red Cross” did not care about the health of children, but examined for the presence of healthy organs» Brown pointed out.

WUHAN-GATES – 50. The Italian Boss of Obama’s Coronavirus. Ukraine Laboratories Funded by former CIA Director Leon Panetta

«Instructions on how to use weapons, including in a children’s format. Reports on the purchase of incubators for eggs used in laboratories to work with cultures of microorganisms. All information is transmitted to the competent authorities of the DPR, which should shed light on who the foreign organization used the residents of Mariupol as» the Taranenko’s report added.

ICC Prosecutor’s failure to take action in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Which is the answer of International Criminal Court in Palestine?

The result has been reported by Euro-Med too in another article on his website after five countries asked the opening of an official investigation on Netanyahu’s army war crimes.

The investigations on this ongoing violence against Palestinians has been opened already on 2021 but remained without consequence.

HAMAS VIOLENCE vs ISRAELI WAR CRIMES. Partisan-Terrorists Loved by Gaza, Zionists Shielded by Hague ICC & US

In a new statement issued on December, 1st, 2023 Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor expressed shock at International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan’s failure to take any practical action regarding the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly the Gaza Strip, in what appears to be a case of clear double standards and possible political subordination.

Euro-Med Monitor said that «in light of the extraordinarily high level of documentation—unparalleled in history—of the Israeli wars on Gaza, which fit the definition of a genocide in the making under international law, Khan’s selective vision is a shameful affront to justice. The rights group connectedhis view of the situation in Gaza to a resolution issued by the UN Security Council giving only certain countries decision-making authority».

Five countries ask ICC to investigate Genocide in Palestine

«Khan reportedly conducted a secret visit to the region on 17 November during which he inspected the southern Israeli communities without visiting the other side of the perimeter fence where 2,3 million people have been subjected to what may amount to systematic war crimes and crimes against humanity» Euro-Med Monitor highlighted at the time thanks his headquarters in Gaza City.

Further humanitarian organization added: «In his public announcement that he was visiting Israel to meet the families and victims of the October 7 attack, Karim Khan timidly added that he was going to visit Ramallah as well, although Gaza is the site of the Israeli carnage. Even then, Khan did not meet with victims of Israel’s occupation and settler terrorism or their families».

ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan during his visit in Israel

As pointed out by Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya and former head of political affairs in the Office of the UN Special Envoy for Syria as well as Hasmik Egian, former director of the UN’s Security Council Affairs Department, Khan has “has significantly eroded the credibility of the Court”.

Rabbani and Egian highlight that since taking office in June 2021, Khan has limited the court’s “priority” to matters that the UN Security Council has referred to it (such as Libya and Darfur, in Sudan), and has downplayed other matters that the court was already investigating, like Palestine and Afghanistan. For instance, in his opening briefing to the UN Security Council in November 2021, Khan reiterated his commitment.

Moscow opens Criminal Case against ICC Prosecutor Khan, who Hugged Zelensky before the Warrant to Putin

Russia’s Investigative Committee  has opened a criminal case against the prosecutor and judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) who issued a warrant for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This happened after the meeting that took place in Kiev on 28 February 2023 in which there was an enthusiastic embrace between the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky and the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of The Hague Karim Khan, despite the accusations against military and paramilitary forces of the Kiev army in the genocide of pro-Russians in the Donbass which lasted from 2014 until 2022, when the civil war exploded into an open military confrontation.

MASSONERIA & SIONISMO – 1. Genocidi da Guerra Mondiale & Pandemia da Laboratorio per Vaccini Killer. “Cataclisma” da Sinagoga di Satana

The answer on these behaviors before Palestinians and Ukrainians can be explained by the Zionist heritage of Zelensky and Netanyahu in an huge centuries-old conspiracy of Freemasonry and, in lates years of NATO, toward New World Order as forecast by the other Zionist George Soros. 

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio© COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWSprohibition of reproduction without authorization follow Gospa News on Telegram

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

MAIN SOURCES

EURO-MED – Israel intensifies its forced displacement of Palestinian in the Gaza Strip

EURO-MED – Int’l committee must investigate Israel’s holding of dead bodies in Gaza​

CHINA RISING – Israelis are harvesting organs from massacred Palestinians!

EURO-MED – ICC’s credibility is waning following its attorney general’s secret visit to Israeli settlements

GOSPA NEWS – WAR ZONE

GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER

Israel’s hostage Deal with Hamas after reaching Target of Genocide and Diaspora in Gaza

WAR CRIMES & DECEITS. ICC against Putin! Unpunished NATO Allies: Ukrainian Nazis as Bosnian Butcher, Jihadists General

“TOWARD A NEW WORLD ORDER: The Future of NATO”. Soros’ 1993 Manifesto in which Forecast Ukraine War

NWO Zionist Lobby to Persecute Christians: Netanyahu in Jerusalem like Zelensky in Kiev

UKRAINE BIOLABS – 4. INTERVIEW ON NWO BIOWEAPONS. Jeff Brown China Rising & Fabio Carisio Gospa News

The Conflation of Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Is a Propagandistic Lie

Fabio G. C. Carisio

Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal.

His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more…

Most popolar investigation on VT is:

Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting.

For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime.

With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians.

In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence.

In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates

His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others

He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator.

VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

www.gospanews.net/

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

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




https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/12/israelis-harvest-human-organs-from-massacred-palestinians/

Jack Smith's comprehensive search warrant sought Trump's search history, direct messages, and “content of all tweets created, drafted, favorited/liked, or retweeted” by his account from October 2020 to January 2021.

Palestinian victims' voice at ICC, French lawyer denounces Israeli 'genocide' in Gaza
Palestinian victims' voice at ICC, French lawyer denounces Israeli 'genocide' in Gaza
PARIS

A French lawyer considered a voice of Palestinian victims at the International Criminal Court has denounced the ongoing Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip.

Gilles Devers told Anadolu that he filed a complaint at the tribunal based in The Hague against Israel's air strikes in Gaza, accusing the country of "genocide."

He said war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide were being handled separately at the ICC, adding that the sufferings of the Palestinians were different than those of Rohingya Muslims.



According to him, the situation in Gaza is also worse than what happened in Srebrenica in 1995, recalling that 8,600 people were killed there during what was considered a genocide.

"We have a high amount of evidence, thus we request an arrest warrant against (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu," Devers said. "We found shocking images of Israeli soldiers acting out of revenge, that could be considered inhumane."

The lawyer explained that threatening the existence of a community, cutting access to basic needs including electricity, water, food, and health services, and bombing hospitals and civilians, and forcing people into displacement, amount to genocide.

Israel has continued its air and ground attacks on the Gaza Strip since the Oct. 7 incursion by Hamas, killing more than 11,000 Palestinians besides damaging and destroying thousands of civilian structures and imposing a total siege, resulting in the shortage of basic necessities such as food, medicines, and fuel.

Anadolu photos as evidence

The lawyer also commented on Anadolu's photos showing Israel committed using phosphorus bombs on Gaza.

"These are perfect documents," he said. "Technically, we already know that the white smoke is phosphorus stain."

Devers also commented on Anadolu's photos showing phosphorus bombs stacked in front of an Israeli tank.



"This is the photo of a war crime, and those are the criminals," he said, adding that international law bans aerial use of chemical weapons, hence Israel tried showing it was using those via tanks.

Devers stressed that he would be happy to include the photos captured by the Turkish news agency in the file as evidence.

He said Israel is using chemical weapons to move Palestinians out of the region, and it cannot be considered as an isolated event.



The ICC is not an "ideal" justice body but it is the only international one for the Palestinian people, whose rights have been violated, he said.

Devers recalled that the US and Israel did everything they could to prevent Palestine from being represented at the ICC, despite it signing the Rome Statute in 2015.

According to him, the ICC is the only international justice body recognizing Palestine as a state.

"Our job is neither politics nor religion, but to defend rights," Devers said, and hailed that hundreds of lawyers joined the initiative from over 20 countries, including Türkiye.

Anadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.


https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/palestinian-victims-voice-at-icc-french-lawyer-denounces-israeli-genocide-in-gaza/3055588

Five countries ask ICC to investigate Genocide in Palestine
Fabio G. C. CarisioNovember 18, 2023

VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

by Carlo Domenico Cristofori

Five countries have asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the situation in Palestine, ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan said on Friday, according to TASS Russian News Agency.

These five countries are Bangladesh, Bolivia, Djibouti, South Africa, and the Comoros.

“We are opposed to the operation that is ongoing, particularly as it is now targeting hospitals where babies, women, and the injured are dying like flies,” the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa announced on Wednesday during a two-day visit to Qatar.

South Africa refers Israel to International Criminal Court for Genocide in Gaza

On Wednesday, Ramaphosa claimed that while South Africa, an active supporter of Palestinian sovereignty, does not endorse the Hamas incursion, the Israeli response amounts to genocide that warrants an ICC investigation.

“There is a need for the whole world to rise and call for the Israeli government to ceasefire, and stop what is happening and the ICC to investigate. Of course, legal measures need to be taken at a global level,” he added.

“EU is Becoming Complicit in Genocide of Netanyahu War Criminal”. Spanish Minister Blames

Under the Rome Statute, any member country may inform the prosecutor about a situation when it thinks one or more crimes falling under the court’s jurisdiction were committed to decide whether one or more persons ought to be sued.

Such notions, however, are rather symbolic, as since March 3, 2021, the ICC has been investigating crimes committed after June 12, 2014 in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including Eastern Jerusalem. “It continues and covers the escalation of hostilities and violence after the October 7, 2023 attacks,” Khan said.

Israeli Helicopters Opened Fire Killing Civilians during Hamas Attack On 7 October

Tensions flared up again in the Middle East on October 7 after militants from the Gaza Strip-based radical Palestinian group Hamas launched a surprise incursion on Israeli territory, killing many Israeli kibbutz residents living near the Gaza border and abducting more than 200 Israelis, including women, children and the elderly.

HAMAS VIOLENCE vs ISRAELI WAR CRIMES. Partisan-Terrorists Loved by Gaza, Zionists Shielded by Hague ICC & US

Hamas described its attack as a response to Israeli authorities’ aggressive actions against the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City. Israel declared a total blockade of the Gaza Strip and launched bombardments of the enclave and some areas in Lebanon and Syria, as well as a ground operation against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Clashes are also reported in the West Bank.

The Plotted GENOCIDE: Leaked Israeli Plan to Ethnically cleanse Gaza

Last week, Colombian President Gustavo Petro announced Bogota would request that the court prosecute Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over “the massacre” of civilians in Gaza. Similarly, two Turkish lawyers and a former lawmaker have petitioned Ankara’s government to file charges against Israel at the ICC, to which Türkiye is also not a party.

Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against the US president and two cabinet officials for their alleged failure to stop and encourage “genocide” in Gaza.

US President Biden Sued for Complicity In Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin are accused in a federal complaint (pdf below) filed on Monday of “failure to prevent and complicity in the Israeli government’s unfolding genocide.”

The Centre for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a civil liberties organization based in New York, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Palestinian human rights organizations, Palestinians living in Gaza, and US citizens who have family living in the besieged area that has been under constant bombardment by Israel—an entity that receives financial support and armaments from the US government—for more than a month.

On 15 October 2023, over 800 scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies signed a public statement warning of the possibility of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Warning of Genocide in Gaza by 800 International Law Scholars. Even the Holocaust ones and many EU, UK, US professors

Signatories include prominent Holocaust and genocide studies scholars, as well as many international law and TWAIL scholars. The TWAIL Review is an open-access journal & website for writing and thinking from the perspectives of Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL).

Russian President Vladimir Putin has condemned the ongoing bombing campaign waged by Israel against the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, stating it cannot be justified by anything.

“The horrible events currently unfolding in the Gaza Strip, when hundreds of thousands of innocent people are getting indiscriminately annihilated, have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide from bombardment, cannot be justified by anything,” Putin stated.

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

Carlo Domenico Cristofori
© COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS
prohibition of reproduction without authorization
follow Gospa News on Telegram

LINKS SOURCES

TASS – RUSSIAN NEWS AGENCY

GOSPA NEWS – PALESTINE

GOSPA NEWS – WAR ZONE

GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER

Devastating Raid in GAZA Hospital. Turkish Lawyers blames of “genocide” Netanyahu: “the 21st century Hitler”

The ZIONIST FÜHRER’s Huge Horror Show. UN “Gaza Graveyard for Children, Possible War Crimes”. Top UN Official Resigns vs Israeli Lobby

Putin: “Innocent Children Annihilated: Gaza Horror can’t be Justified”

Netanyahu like King Erode in the Innocents Massacre. UNiCEF: 3342 Children Killed in Gaza. Israel: “NO Inquiry on Hospital Bombing”

Gaza: SATAN’S HOLOCAUST. No More Words, Images are Enough! A Minute of Silence to Pray. WARNING! Chilling Video

Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal.

His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more…

Most popolar investigation on VT is:

Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting.

For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime.

With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians.

In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence.

In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates

His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others

He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator.

VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

www.gospanews.net/


ATTENTION READERS

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

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


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/five-countries-ask-icc-to-investigate-genocide-in-palestine/

“Soros” French Judges want to Arrest Assad for Douma Chemical Attack! Despite It was a White Helmets False-Flag | VT Foreign Policy
November 16, 2023
VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

The Syrian Civil War began way back on March 15, 2011 and after 12 years continues in the now indifference of the media and the Western population, completely indifferent to the continuous appeals of Catholic and Maronite Christian religious people against an interminable persecution by the West.

Despite this, even today there are international bodies that try to prosecute the legitimately elected Syrian president Bashar Al Assad who opposed the regime change planned by the American counter-espionage of the Central Intelligence Agency since 1983 and financed by George Soros since the beginning of the so-called The Arab Springs started by the US Obama-Biden administration in 2011 with the killing of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who governed Libya triggered the ongoing civil war.

Intel Reminder. CIA TOP SECRET FILE: US WAR IN SYRIA PLANNED SINCE 1983

Despite this, today the judges of France, who was complicit in those NATO violations of territorial sovereignty in the Middle East, instigated by a Soros NGO, want to arrest Assad for the chemical attacks of 2013 even if, as in the case of the subsequent massacre of 7 April 2018, there is a well-founded suspicion that they were False-Flag actions (humanitarian crimes committed “under a false flag” to accuse the adversary) conducted by the infamous White Helmets, in complicity with jihadist terrorist groups, thanks to the training provided by the former soldier of the British secret services James Le Mesurier, who died in a mysterious accident in Istanbul in 2019, and to funding from the USA and the United Kingdom.

An international investigation into the 2018 Douma attack, in fact. confirmed this hypothesis without a shadow of a doubt.

Middle East Escalation toward WW3! Biden challenges Iran with US Strikes on Syrian IRGC Bases

The Syrian Civil War triggered by the CIA, USA and NATO for Oil

The Syrian war continues every day due to rockets launched by HTS terrorists from the Idlib stronghold protected by Turkey and NATO of which it is part, thanks to the TOW anti-tank systems provided by the CIA’s MOM operation started by Obama.

Turkish papers: 21 Erdogan’s jihadist militias supported by Cia, Pentagon and armed with TOW missiles

It takes shape in the continuous bombings that the Israeli Defense Forces air force carries out at least twice a week, which have become daily after the start of the war in the Gaza Strip, and which the US Air Force does not skimp on, especially in the Deir Ezzor area where since he established the Al Tanf military base on the border with Jordan and Iraq he has been stealing hundreds of barrels of Syrian oil every day with the complicity of various jihadist factions or Turkey.

American Shame in Syria: US Persecutes Population with the Sanctions but Steals 66,000 Oil Barrels Every Day

If massive migrations of Christians, Shiite Muslims, Arabs in general and other ethnic minorities continue towards Europe from Syria, it is due to the sanctions imposed by the EU and the USA, recently eased during the terrible earthquake of February 2023, and the violent actions of mercenaries recruited by Turkey from among the former commanders of Al Qaeda and ISIS to conduct the operation called Spring Peace in October 2019 with which it conquered a good portion of Rojava controlled by the Autonomous Administration of North-East Syria founded by the Kurds.

Earthquake Death Toll over 45,000. “In Syria Disaster Exacerbated by US-EU Sanctions” Damasco Foreign Minister said

The Kurds were the main component of the SDF popular army, also composed of Arabs and minimally Christians, which defeated the Islamic State in that area after it had been allowed to grow in Iraq by the US Army with the liberation of Caliph Al Baghdadi detained by them in Camp Buqqa and for the apparent operational inability of the then commander of military operations Lloyd Austin, then rewarded without reason by President Joe Biden with the position of Secretary of the Department of Defense.

In this context of mystifications, lies and falsehoods, the French judges return to the charge against Assad for the chemical attacks of 2013, confirming the old lying story with which NATO justified the removal of Saddam Hussein from the government of Iraq.

CIA, Mossad & Talibans in Jihadist’s New Empire to Use Afghanistan against Iran and Russia

This happens even though an international investigation has shown that these chemical attacks were presumably conducted, as in 2018, by the White Helmets with the complicity of Al Nusra jihadists, an offshoot of Al Qaeda which has now merged into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

The Douma Investigation by OPCW Experts

«The cover-up of evidence that the Douma incident was staged is not merely misconduct. As the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of civilians, those in OPCW who have suppressed the evidence of staging are, unwittingly or otherwise, colluding with mass murder».

This was the terrible conclusion reached by some British university professors of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media, an independent international organization to facilitate the search for fake news or false flags in the sectors of organized persuasive communication and media coverage, in relation to the current conflict in Syria in 2011 (and related topics).


The incipit and conclusions of the Henderson dossier on the chemical attack in Douma – link in the sources at the bottom of article
The report was drawn up by three professors Paul McKeigue (University of Edinburgh), David Miller (University of Bristol), Piers Robinson (University of Sheffield) and is based on the dossier drawn up by a researcher from the engineering subgroup of the Mission Fact-Finding (FFM ) of the OPCW: the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is an international body, based in The Hague, the Netherlands. investigating the April 2018 chemical attack in the city of Douma, Eastern Ghouta, in the Rif governorate of Damascus.

DOUMA: MASSACRO JIHADISTA CON ARMI CHIMICHE SU 35 VITTIME LEGATE

He referred to engineer Ian Henderson’s dossier on the two main sites (2 and 4 in the study) where the dispersion of liquid chlorine contained in two cylinders occurred which, according to the first controversial testimonies and the OPCW report, fell from the sky: a hypothesis which today is denied by a technical analysis, however kept hidden by the same organization on the prohibition of chemical weapons.

«Our last Briefing Note listed two other key findings:

It is no longer seriously disputed that the hospital scene was staged: there are multiple eyewitness reports supported by video evidence
The case fatality rate of 100%, with no attempt by the victims to escape, is unlike any recorded chlorine attack.
Taken together, these findings establish beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 was staged».

This is what the academics of the Working Group on Syria wrote and was published by Gospa News in May 2019.

Human Organs’ Traffic in Syria ignored by UN: Sana and CBS videos on White Helmets, Al Qaeda & Turkey Crimes

«We conclude that the staging of the Douma incident entailed mass murder of at least 35 civilians to provide the bodies at Location 2. It follows from this that people dressed as White Helmets and endorsed by the leadership of that organization had a key role in this murder».

Among the victims there were also children tied and hung by their feet to be killed by inhaling lethal chemical gases.

The French judges instigated against Assad by Soros’ NGO

It should not be forgotten that the White Helmets were denounced to the UN by Russia as an “international terrorist organization” for complicity with jihadists and for international trafficking of human organs, as confirmed by from a subsequent investigation conducted by TV CBS.

But instead of investigating those responsible for that False-Flag action or the attacks with white phosphorus bombs carried out by President Recep Tayyp Erdogan’s Turkey in Syria, denounced by a Swedish scientist, the West invents another show trial against Assad.

Syria: NATO, UN are responsible for Turkish Use of Chemical Weapons. Swedish-Iranian Expert Dr. Mansoura Accuses

If the lies about NATO wars do not stop, the flood of blood in the Mediterranean and throughout Europe will not be able to stop.

Because it was born over centuries of complicity between Freemasonry and Zionism for the creation of the New World Order theorized by Soros as an evolution of the Atlantic Alliance since 1993,

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio
© COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS
prohibition of reproduction without authorization
follow Gospa News on Telegram

France calls for arrest of Bashar Assad

by Russia Today

All links to previous Gospa News investigations have been added aftermath, for the ties with the topics highlighted

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

French judges have issued international arrest warrants against Syrian President Bashar Assad and other senior officials in his government on war crimes charges stemming from alleged chemical weapons attacks in August 2013.

“TOWARD A NEW WORLD ORDER: The Future of NATO”. Soros’ 1993 Manifesto in which Forecast Ukraine War

The warrants accuse Assad, his brother Maher Assad, and two Syrian generals of complicity in crimes against humanity for their alleged roles in attacks that killed more than 1,000 civilians in the rebel-held areas of Douma and Eastern Ghouta during a bloody civil war, according to reports on Wednesday by Reuters and other media outlets. Paris, formerly Syria’s colonial ruler, claims to have worldwide jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity.

WAR CRIMES & DECEITS. ICC against Putin! Unpunished NATO Allies: Ukrainian Nazis as Bosnian Butcher, Jihadists General

Wednesday’s media reports cited an unidentified judicial source. A French court has been investigating the 2013 attacks since 2021, and its warrants mark the first international charges over the incidents.

The probe came in response to a criminal complaint lodged by the Syrian Center for Media Freedom and Expression (SCM) and the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), an operation created by leftist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

SCM President Mazen Darwish called the warrants “a new victory for the victims, their families, and the survivors,” as well as “a step on the path to justice and sustainable peace in Syria.” Assad has repeatedly denied Western accusations that he used sarin gas and other chemical weapons on his own people.

The administration of then-US President Barack Obama tried to use the 2013 attacks to justify a military intervention in Syria, only to be tripped up when Secretary of State John Kerry was pressed by a reporter on how Damascus could avoid such a response. He replied that Assad would have to turn over all of his chemical weapons and allow unfettered international inspections, which wouldn’t happen. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov backed the demand, and the Syrian government quickly agreed.

AL BAGHDADI: ISIS CALIPH AND MOSSAD-CIA AGENT HIDDEN BY US

No such solutions were offered when the Syrian government was again accused of chemical weapons attacks in 2017 and 2018. The US launched missile strikes against Syrian government targets in response. French and UK forces participated in the latter strikes. Whistleblowers later alleged that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) doctored a report that was used after the fact to justify the West’s 2018 missile attacks.

read more: Syria shows the way to fighting imperialism, thanks to Russia and China

Assad’s regime has been embroiled in a civil war with insurgents backed by the US and other foreign governments since 2011. The government has regained control of most rebel-held areas, thanks largely to help from Russian and Iranian forces. US troops have illegally occupied oil-rich areas of northeastern Syria since 2014.

Originally published by Russia Today

All links to previous Gospa News investigations have been added aftermath, for the ties with the topics highlighted

Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

MAIN SOURCES

DOUMA HENDERSON DOSSIER

GOSPA NEWS – WAR ZONE

GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER

MASSONERIA & SIONISMO – 1. Genocidi da Guerra Mondiale & Pandemia da Laboratorio per Vaccini Killer. “Cataclisma” da Sinagoga di Satana

NATO’s COUP IN UKRAINE: THE GENESIS – 3. Kiev Court sentenced Four Cops, ignoring the Plot of Shady Snipers

MEDITERRANEO DI SANGUE. Libro Profetico sul Medio Oriente dell’ex Funzionario Interpol Italiano in Giordania

CIA, Mossad & Talibans in Jihadist’s New Empire to Use Afghanistan against Iran and Russia

14 Thousand Jihadist Troops in Libya for Turkey Blitz alongside US Weapons’ Lobby, NATO’s Deep State & NWO

Fabio G. C. Carisio
Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal.

His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more…

Most popolar investigation on VT is:

Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting.

For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime.

With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians.

In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence.

In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates

His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others

He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator.

VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

www.gospanews.net/


ATTENTION READERS

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

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


https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/soros-french-judges-want-to-arrest-assad-for-douma-chemical-attack-despite-it-was-a-white-helmets-false-flag/