Navigating the contemporary business landscape has become a balancing act of profit and purpose, necessitating a profound commitment to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. Click here to read more: https://vertenergygroup.com/the-environmental-social-and-governance-esg-benefits-of-commercial-energy-audits/

CASE 01 - Autopsy proven myocarditis death in AUSTRALIA Barrack Heights NSW, AUSTRALIA - Roberto Garin was only 52 when he ‘died suddenly’ on 28 July 2021. The healthy father of two teenagers began feeling ill 48 hours after his first Pfizer shot and dropped dead in front of his terrified wife Kirsti six days later while she was on the phone to paramedics. Garin’s family immediately suspected the vaccine caused his death. Kirsti was told her husband was the first person to die after a Pfizer shot. In fact, 176 deaths following Pfizer jabs had already been reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), starting in the first week of the vaccine rollout. But when Kirsti shared her concerns with filmmaker Alan Hashem, who released the video together with the accounts of other vaccine injuries and deaths, it unleashed a storm. ‘Misinformation researchers’ published by the ABC dismissed Kirsti’s ‘claims her 52-year-old husband died from “sudden onset myocarditis” after receiving the Pfizer vaccine’ because it didn’t ‘square with official data’. Yet that was exactly what forensic pathologist Bernard l’Ons wrote in a brilliant report on his autopsy stating that the deceased’s heart showed a clear transition to severe giant cell myocarditis that could be ‘histologically dated to the time period of the Covid-19 mRNA vaccination’ and it was ‘reasonable to state that the deceased’s previously undiagnosed cardiac sarcoidosis may have transitioned to a fulminating myocarditis as a result of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccination’ noting that myocarditis had been reported in reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. L’Ons proposed a mechanism by which the vaccine could trigger fatal myocarditis and advised that a possible therapeutic implication was that sarcoid patients be given an echocardiogram to detect whether their heart was affected in which case alternative vaccination types could be considered. All of this was ignored by the TGA which refuses to admit to this day that any death can be attributed to a Pfizer vaccine and was parroted by the ABC. The TGA did admit that as of 22 August it had received ‘235 reports of suspected myocarditis, (inflammation of the heart muscle) and/or pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart) following vaccination’ with Pfizer but said, ‘These reports reflect the observations of the people reporting them and have not been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine,’ and that ‘some events may be coincidental and would have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination.’ This is a particularly misleading statement. Four out of five reports to the TGA are submitted not by random ‘people’, but by highly qualified health professionals and in Garin’s case by a forensic pathologist. Why would the TGA dismiss these reports? That’s a question Associate Professor Michael Nissen could perhaps shed light on. He was appointed to the TGA in February 2021, just as the Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out, to lead its Signal Investigation Unit which investigates safety issues that arise with vaccines in adverse reports or are raised by international regulators or the medical literature. Prior to his appointment, Nissen was the Director of Scientific Affairs and Public Health at GSK Vaccines from October 2014 to January 2021, a period during which GSK and Pfizer entered into a joint venture. Nissen worked concurrently in hospital-based medical care and academia. He has led over 40 clinical trials and authored over 200 peer-reviewed publications including vaccine studies. In all these areas pharmaceutical companies are a major source of funding. The TGA is sensitive about managing conflicts of interest for advisory committee members but offers no guidance on its website with regard to staff members although presumably the same principles should, at least in theory, apply. It notes that shares, involvement in clinical trials, employment, contracts, consultancies, grants, sponsorships, board memberships and so on, may give rise to a conflict of interest. Robert Clancy, an Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School and a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Covid-19 Expert Database wrote in Quadrant online last week that ‘the power of the pharmaceutical industry and its pervasive influence at every level of political and medical decision-making’ has been underestimated in shaping the pandemic narrative which has been driven by commercial imperatives to such an extent that it has crushed scientific debate. Clancy recounts that his approach to the College of Pathology (of which he was a Senior Fellow, a foundation Professor of Pathology, and past-Chairman of the College committee for undergraduate pathology education) calling for a national study to determine whether Covid vaccination was responsible for the increase in excess mortality in Australia and elsewhere by developing a protocol for post-mortems ‘to answer what is arguably the most important question facing medicine’ met with a rejection and a suggestion to take it instead to the TGA. Nowadays, dying suddenly has become ominously familiar. According to a new film Died Suddenly available as of this week to stream via Twitter, in the last 18 months, the term ‘Died Suddenly’ has risen to the very top of ‘most searched’ Google terms. The film documents the surge in excess mortality in highly vaccinated countries. Dr. Peter McCullough, internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and one of the top five most-published, and most censored, medical researchers in the US, says that sudden death frequently occurs because the heart has been damaged by inflammation caused by Covid vaccines. Papers that Pfizer and the Food and Drug Administration tried to hide for 75 years show that Pfizer knew in 2020 that myocarditis and pericarditis could be caused by its vaccine. And in the Pfizer trial in Argentina, a report on a healthy 36-year old  participant – Augusto German Roux – who developed pericarditis immediately after his second Pfizer jab, mysteriously disappeared from the published trial results. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ) belatedly published a warning about myocarditis and pericarditis in September this year. It was too late for Garin. Had his doctors known, his life might have been saved. His grieving family have still not received a cent in compensation. But Pfizer has apparently grossed nearly $100 billion from its sales of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. Rebecca Weisser is an independent journalist. ====== https://open.substack.com/pub/makismd/p/mrna-injury-stories-australian-dad?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios

The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed. One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva. A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB). Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella. The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant. Historical Perspective These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing. In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others. The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat. With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations. As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context. Why May 2024? The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place. They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years.. A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions. The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations. This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO. The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva. Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent. Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different. The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm. To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below. The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement. REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024 Preamble Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work. This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm. Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed. Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness. In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes. Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services, As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations. These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective. Chapter I. Introduction Article 1. Use of terms (i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern. This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022. (j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality. This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response. “Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship. While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people. Article 2. Objective This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern. Article 3. Principles 2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary. 3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people. This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda). Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact. 5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes. The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity. Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these. In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events. Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance 2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate: (b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential. (c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.] The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations. The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work. 6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article. Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs. Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?) Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new). Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery 2. Each Party commits…[to] : (a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations (b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure (c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies (d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking. (e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision. Article 7. Health and care workforce This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for: 4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment… Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so. Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews 1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system. 2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels. Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries. Article 9. Research and development Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?). Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations. Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc. Article 12. Access and benefit sharing This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials. 3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]: (a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party; (b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs), Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this. The article then becomes yet more concerning: 6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer: (a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties; (b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, … It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight. The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment. 8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible. The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit. 10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality. The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine. The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products. It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity. Article 13. Supply chain and logistics The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products. Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it). For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase. Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing. Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort. Article 15. Liability and compensation management 1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms… 2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations. This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does. This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm. Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk. These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak. Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement. Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries). However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed). Article 18. Communication and public awareness 1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation… 2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies. The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss. As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement. Article 19. Implementation and support 3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005). As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other. Article 20. Sustainable financing 1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall: (a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);… This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it. 3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005) This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva. It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking. Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions Article 21. Conference of the Parties 1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established. 2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation. This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion. Articles 22 – 37 These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues. Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU). The WHO will provide the secretariat. Under Article 24 is noted: 3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns. These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement. As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.” Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public. Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time. Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it. Further reading: WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website: https://inb.who.int/ International Health Regulations Working Group website: https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html On background to the WHO texts: Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations On urgency and burden of pandemics: https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement: Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Authors David Bell David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. He is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA. View all posts Thi Thuy Van Dinh Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organization partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/ https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

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

Jessica Lyons - Truck-to-truck worm could infect – and disrupt – entire US commercial fleet: https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/boffins_tucktotruck_worm #CommercialTransportation #ElectronicLoggingDevice #ELD #Malware #ComputerWorm #RemoteAccess #RemoteMonitoring #RemoteManagement #RMM #OverTheAirUpdate #OTA #WiFi #Bluetooth #Cybersecurity #NetworkSecurity #InfrastructureSecurity #ComputerScience

🚨 Study Claims COVID Caused More Heart Damage Than Vaccines — Here’s What the Authors Got Wrong Rainer Johannes Klement, Ph.D + Harald Walach reanalyzed data and found that while coronaviruses might cause myocarditis, the COVID-19 vaccines cause at least as much or more. Study Claims COVID Caused More Heart Damage Than Vaccines — Here’s What the Authors Got Wrong A 2023 study admitted that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis, but claimed the COVID-19 virus was even more damaging than the vaccine. A recent, more detailed review of their data, however, showed the opposite is likely true. Angelo DePalma, Ph.D. human heart with covid vaccine Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Despite the known side effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, some studies (here, here and here) and health websites (here, here and here) argue that whatever vaccination’s adverse outcomes, being unvaccinated is worse. In one such study, Dr. Christian Mueller and his co-authors concluded the COVID-19 virus — not the vaccine — was responsible for more myocarditis, or heart muscle damage, than the vaccine. However, when Rainer Johannes Klement, Ph.D., a physicist at Leopoldina Hospital in Schweinfurt, Germany, and Harald Walach, a clinical psychologist and head of the Change Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland, reanalyzed Mueller’s data they found that while coronaviruses might cause myocarditis, the COVID-19 vaccines cause at least as much or more. The Klement paper appeared in the Feb. 1 edition of The Egyptian Health Journal. Mueller’s study Mueller set out to quantify and compare myocarditis in vaxed versus unvaxed subjects and to explain possible mechanisms. To explore these mechanisms, the researchers tested subjects for antibodies against interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), the SARS-CoV-2-nucleoprotein, the viral spike protein and 14 inflammatory cytokines. Since none of these measures differed between study groups, the “mechanism” issue was unresolved. To assess myocarditis investigators tested 777 hospital workers (median age 37, 69.5% women) for cardiac troponin T one and three days after they received an mRNA-1273 booster. Cardiologists typically prescribe this test after a suspected heart attack to quantify the extent and duration of heart damage. Of the 40 subjects (5.1%) with elevated troponin on Day 3, 22 (2.8%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, with 20 cases occurring in women and two in men. The researchers reported that among these subjects troponin elevations were mild and temporary and did not involve abnormalities as determined by electrocardiogram. No patients experienced “major adverse cardiac events” within 30 days of receiving the shot. Mueller’s team concluded: COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis that [sic] mRNA vaccination … Myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA vaccination. Before the COVID-19 vaccine were [sic] available, the incidence and extent of myocardial injury associated with COVID-19 infection was [sic] much higher than observed in this active surveillance study after booster vaccination. One of the Mueller co-authors had commercial ties to diagnostics companies. Another had previously been compensated by diagnostics and vaccine manufacturers. Mueller had relationships with diagnostics, pharmaceutical and vaccine companies at the time he wrote the paper. Where did Mueller go wrong? One way to measure treatment effects is to compare an outcome, for example, blood pressure, in the same subjects before and after the treatment and report before-and-after results. Although this option was known to medical researchers and available to him, Mueller did not take advantage of it — either because he did not think to measure pre-booster troponin levels or chose not to report them for some reason, perhaps because they did not align with his other results. Instead, his team took an approach that required two well-matched study groups. Although Mueller claimed placebos and controls met this requirement they differed on the feature that mattered most: heart health. Vaccinated subjects with current or recent heart issues were excluded from the study, while all control subjects had just entered the hospital with heart symptoms and were therefore already at greater risk for myocarditis. Klement and Walach found more anomalies in the Mueller paper. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now They began their critique by citing three 2021 studies on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis (here, here and here). All three studies showed myocarditis became a concern shortly after the COVID-19 vaccine introductions. They discussed three papers in some detail: A 2023 German autopsy study on 25 unexpected deaths within 20 days of COVID-19 vaccination identified acute myocarditis as the most probable cause of death in four cases. A 2023 report on myocarditis in 303 non-vaccinated and 700 vaccinated asymptomatic subjects found significantly higher damage in the vaccinated persisting for up to 180 days post-vaccination. One of the first autopsy papers, an Indian-led study based on World Health Organization pharmacovigilance data reported 2.1 times the risk for cardiac arrest, 2.7 times the risk for acute heart attack, 2.6 times the risk for elevated troponin, and 7.3-fold higher levels of D-dimer for COVID-19 vaccinations compared with the use of other medications. These studies strongly suggest that myocarditis became an issue only after the mRNA vaccine rollouts. They contradict Mueller’s statement that the “extent of myocardial injury associated with COVID-19 infection was much higher than observed in this active surveillance study after booster vaccination.” According to Klement and Walach, this statement is wrong for two reasons. First, in addition to the non-equivalence of controls’ and subjects’ heart-health status, Mueller ignored the much larger number of COVID-19-infected, unhospitalized, unvaccinated individuals with (presumably) much lower troponin levels compared with patients entering the hospital with heart symptoms. Second, Klement and Walach argued that the public health impact of myocarditis depends not only on the incidence or rate among study groups but the size of those groups. The significance is that a lower incidence in a very large group (vaccinated) is more meaningful than a slightly higher rate in a very small group (individuals infected with COVID-19). scales of justice Your support helps fund this work, and CHD’s related advocacy, education and scientific research. Donate Now On that basis, Klement and Walach estimated the number of myocarditis cases among all German COVID-19 hospitalizations at 27,467, and among those who were vaccinated at 1.97 million. As a result, regardless of myocarditis severity, there were 71.7 times as many myocarditis cases among the vaccinated as among those hospitalized for COVID-19. A similar analysis for Switzerland estimated 169,960 cases of myocarditis among vaccinated compared with 8,179 among those hospitalized for COVID-19. Although not as dramatic as the German estimates this still shows a much higher occurrence of heart damage among vaccinated versus hospitalized. In a June 2021 paper, Walach, Klement and Dutch data analyst Wouter Aukema concluded that based on 700 adverse reactions, 16 serious side effects and 4.11 deaths for every 100,000 vaccinations, COVID-19 vaccines were released with insufficient safety data. The authors said the risk-benefit ratio for mRNA vaccines did not add up because “for three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.” Mueller told The Defender via email: “Our study reveals an important lack of prospective safety data concerning COVID-19 vaccines. Given the magnitude of the vaccinated population compared to the much smaller proportion of the population that became infected and developed symptoms, including a small percentage with possible heart damage, our findings should remain qualitatively robust.” LEARN MORE ⬇️ https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-study-myocarditis-vaccines/ Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty

The Rothschild Deep State Cabal Is Imploding Jonas E. Alexis, Senior EditorFebruary 23, 2024 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. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776 That same momentous year that kicked off the American Revolution, 1776 was also the year that ex-Jesuit Adam Weishaupt in Bavaria founded his Illuminati Order, sponsored by Mayer Amschel Rothschild as House of Rothschild patriarch in nearby Frankfurt, Germany. And it was America’s third US President Thomas Jefferson, who refused renewal of the Rothschild controlled First Bank of America’s charter in 1811. The American Revolution may have been fought for independence from King George’s British monarchy, but not independence from the Rothschild central banking cartel, whose controlling 70% foreign interests in First Bank of America indebted America’s earliest citizens. At the end of George Washington’s eight years as first US president, in 1791 the federalist Rothschild agent Alexander Hamilton installed for the Rothschilds their First Bank of America. Not renewing its charter, Jefferson kicked the Rothschild owned bank out of the US, which became the basis for America’s first war as a sovereign independent country, once again facing the same British enemy in the War of 1812. This war fought over financial independence from Britain’s City of London, only caused young America to drown further in war debt, as Nathan Rothschild backing both sides to every conflict he creates was determined to bankrupt the US to force it into recolonization. Despite the hard-fought American military victory, by 1815 with the US war debt nearly tripled at $119.2 million in the red, America financially was already a major debtor nation owing the infamous bloodline banking dynasty. That same year, making a colossal fortune over the Battle of Waterloo outcome by pre-rigging his investment, the gloating crook Nathan Rothschild proclaimed: I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply. Sadly, America’s War of 1812 struggle for financial independence from the Rothschild controllers was lost. A brief excerpt from my Pedophilia & Empire series, Book 3, chapter one on the Rothschild family: In 1816 with yet a Second Bank of the United States foisted on American citizens for the next 20 years, in effect, Rothschild was simply seizing his predatory ownership of the United States. And once again, private control over the US money supply tacking on parasitic interest went into the coffers of as many as 1000 foreign investors, with [Nathan’s younger brother] Baron James de Rothschild in Paris holding the controlling shares. When the Second Bank of America’s charter was up for renewal 20 years later in 1836, that year Nathan Rothschild died. But France’s James de Rothschild assuming control over both the London and Paris banking branches, battled playing dirty as usual for charter renewal. He met his match as the resolute, feisty President Andrew Jackson was up for the challenge, declaring war on the House of Rothschild: You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by eternal God, I will rout you out. President Jackson’s turn to oppose the centralized moneychangers ultimately proved successful, kicking the Rothschilds out of America yet again, and the second British dynasty US takeover was again foiled, at least temporarily. However, the year prior in 1835, amidst the battle over the US private central bank, Jackson barely dodged a bullet to literally escape an assassination attempt attributed to Rothschild wrath. From 1836 to 1913, the US was largely free of the treacherous Rothschild leeches from Europe, signifying America’s longest period of foremost economic growth and prosperity in its entire history. Having acquired central banking control over Europe and through Nathan Rothschild’s ownership of the Bank of England by early 19th century, the British East India Company monopoly over international trade, including both the drug and slave trade, spanned the globe from Africa, the Indian and Pacific Oceans to North America and Europe, the flourishing international banking cartel consolidated its growing global money lending power over every commercial trade on every continent. But one vast sprawling nation covering two continents over the centuries resisted and eluded the Rothschild clutches. As a result, Russia was repeatedly targeted, as its ruling Romanov monarchy managed to successfully evade the Rothschild predatory conquest, but not without murderous retribution. From author Eustice Mullens’ New World Order: After the fall of Napoleon, the Rothschilds turned all their hatred against the Romanovs. In 1825, they poisoned Alexander I; in 1855, they poisoned Nicholas I. Other assassinations followed, culminating on the night of November 6, 1917, when a dozen Red Guards drove a truck up to the Imperial Bank Building in Moscow. They loaded the Imperial jewel collection and $700 million gold, loot totaling more than a billion dollars. The new regime also confiscated the 150 million acres in Russia personally owned by the Czar. In addition to a century of assassinating Romanov czars by poison, when Czar Alexander II came to the aid of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, which by many accounts attribute Russian support to preserving the Union, the vindictive Rothschild cartel as primary backer of the Confederacy, vowed eternal revenge against the Russia and its royal family. The Rothschilds et al’s war at all cost against Russia today in Ukraine is merely this same long legacy’s outcome. Just prior to the Rothschilds’ planned First World War in 1914, a few months earlier in late 1913, they deceptively snuck through Congress their Federal Reserve Act on December 23rd, after most members had already left on Christmas break. The Jekyll Island rendezvous of the Fed Reserve architects included Paul Warburg, the German born chief central banking Rothschild agent moved to the US, ending up the second Vice Fed chairman. Continuity of one thought mind pervades the Warburg clan as Paul’s son James Paul Warburg before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 emphatically declared: We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest. Thus, the third Rothschild central private bank in America was established to take permanent full usury-debtor system control over the US money supply, through bribery of Washington’s political puppet class, and the American people through their engineered debtor system. 1913 also saw the passage of the Federal Income Tax Act, illegally squeezing tax dollars to rip off hardworking US citizens just to pay off debt interests from all the bankers’ war loans. This vicious control cycle is how Khazarian mafia swindlers have cunningly operated since their identity snatching days of their ancient Khazar kingdom over a millennium ago. The Rothschild central banking controllers hired one of their own, distant cousin Karl Marx to write his Marxist Communist Manifesto in 1848. And it was the Rothschild cartel money along with Rothschild agent Jacob Schiff in America that financed his fellow Jews’ Bolshevik Revolution and their plotted murder and theft of Russian Czar Nicholas II’s family in 1917. And that billion plus of stolen Russian gold is said to have wound up stored in Rothschild’s underground chambers at City of London’s Bank of England. A centuries long pattern of covert deception, murder, war, corruption and insatiable appetite for greed and increasing power characterize all that is behind today’s still operating Khazarian mafia bankster dynasty rooted in ancient Khazar more than a millennium ago. Closer to this century historically, one world government tyranny and depopulation eugenics have both reflected the elites’ obsession. Rothschild crimes funded all three of the most bloodthirsty dictators in all of human history. The 1917 Russian Revolution spawned the rise of the Lenin-Stalin Communist Soviet Union democide, killing 66 million mostly Christian Russians. Then, since the early 1930s, in addition to Bush, Rothschild and Rockefeller bloodlines also funded the rise of Adolph Hitler. His alleged sacrifice of 6 million Jews in WWII was used coldheartedly as Zionist bargaining chips for the non-Hebrew Ashkenazim false claim of “Israelite birthright” to a homeland in Palestine, promised to Lord Lionel Rothschild in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. Three decades later, the pledge was fulfilled with the establishment of the Jewish State. Despite a non-Hebrew heritage, Ashkenazi [non]Jews that trace back originally to nomadic Turkic tribes, comprise 90% of today’s Israeli population. The Balfour Declaration also made another pledge: …Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The Jewish State since its 1948 inception, that’s the last three quarters of a century now, has brutally pushed out the true Semite Arabs living in Palestine, their rightful ancient homeland, yet they’ve been systematically destroyed by Israel’s official genocidal apartheid policy. This fact is neither anti-Semitic nor what should be allowed or tolerated by rest of the world, yet with impunity, it has for far too long. This shameful reality is largely due to the Zionist House of Rothschild’s influence and control over Israel. Also in the 1930s, the Rothschilds groomed and backed yet another notorious Yale educated dictator Mao Zedong, also covertly supporting his democide against 65 million of his own sacrificed fellow Chinese. Over the centuries, you can recognize a pattern, that these Luciferian bloodline controllers led by the likes of the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties, have had ample practice committing genocides, financing the rise to power of all three dictators responsible for the deadliest genocides in all of history on this planet… that is, until the current unprecedented genocide against today’s human race. In 1933 the globalists of the day attempted the first major coup against the United States government in a failed attempt to overthrew the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, singlehandedly prevented by the Medal of Honor and most decorated war hero US Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler. His intervention stopped the plotted criminal takeover, exposing it publicly in the press in 1934 as well as in his book. And though his courageous actions successfully averted the treasonous subversion committed by some of America’s wealthiest, most powerful conspiratorial traitors as captains of industry, bankers and politicians, among them heir to the Singer Sewing fortune Robert Sterling Clark and George HW Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, during WWII as a Union Banking Corp. director, Bush’s company was linked to financing, aiding and abetting the US Nazi enemy Adolph Hitler, yet his shockingly treasonous past was covered up and he was sent to the US Senate from Connecticut. Of course, the Bush-Clinton crime families are notorious for getting away with multiple felonies of high treason. Pedophile George Bush senior was implicated in America’s largest publicly exposed child sex trafficking network, tagged the “Franklin scandal” involving Nebraska children some from Catholic Boys Town directly trafficked to the White House during the Reagan-Bush administrations. While the Bush crime family are Satanists, their fellow Satanist arrested in this scandal coverup was fall guy Lawrence E. King, though the entire operation was quickly swept under the carpet as ringleader King aided by the likes of Satanist Lt. Col. Michael Aquino hotel drop-off of a cash filled suitcase to King. Like Epstein, Lawrence King was also handed a sweetheart deal with next to no jailtime considering his ungodly crimes. Of course, Aquino always walked free despite being linked to multiple pedo-scandals, protected by his military status high up in America’s MK mind control operation, identified by a number of child victims at the Presidio daycare scandal as well as implicated by Cathy O’Brien as a MK-ultra top programmer. America’s highest-profile pedophile-child sex trafficker is supposedly deceased, Jeffrey Epstein, while his gal pal partner-in-crime Guislaine Maxwell serves her 20-year sentence in a Florida federal penitentiary. Whereas the Franklin scandal incriminates the Bush crime family, both the Epstein-Maxwell operation and Pizzagate scandal expose the Rothschild, Clinton, Podesta, Obama, Biden crime families, including Donald Trump touting what “a terrific guy” Epstein was to 2004 New York Magazine, adding how he loves “the young ones,” wink, wink. The fact is, America’s uniparty is infested with hundreds of compromised famous pedophiles and gatekeeping enablers still walking free, despite the tons of cameras capturing the crimes as evidence. Outside of King, Epstein and Maxwell, zero arrests and prosecutions of any prominent guilty pedo-criminals including British, Belgian, and Dutch royalty, prime ministers and presidents, as well as billionaire criminals like Bill Gates, hundreds, perhaps thousands of these blackmailed VIP politicians, judges, police chiefs, generals, CEOs, bankers and entertainers, all guilty of horrific child sex abuse crimes have yet to face their unholiest of unholy karma. Multiple chapters in Pedophilia & Empire Book 4 unravel the US pedo-scourge and other scandals throughout the world in the other books. The New World Order, secret societies and the global pedophilia network generating enormous black ops revenue involving colossal amounts of money laundering by all Rothschild private central banks, are explicitly intertwined and fully documented in the five volume series with access to all 50 plus chapters here. Because so much accelerated shocking truth is coming out weekly, with a one in 6 billion chance of so many disastrous chemical spill derailments all at once, manmade earthquakes punishing nations aligned with Russia, all are only further incriminating the bloodline controllers and their puppet minions at the highest echelons of Western power. The reason why the Ukraine war is so huge right now, carrying so much at stake, is because the entire New World Order’s one world government scheme is riding on the bloodline controllers’ defeat by Russia in Ukraine as their longtime “devil’s playground” hub gets further exposed to the global public. With all these bloodline criminals vis-à-vis the Rothschild dynasty atop this predatory food chain, busily bribing, blackmailing, and silencing facts and truthtellers through any and all means necessary, it’s to ensure that their psychopathic club of elites remains unreachable and immune from all prosecution and long overdue justice. They know more than enough criminal evidence is out there in the public domain to convict these genocidal killers for their unending crimes and they know that We the People are closing in on them. And because of this, the monstrous beasts are willing to unleash nuclear Armageddon. We are living through epic times, and though millions have already perished and perhaps billions more will follow, in this war between good and evil, we have them on the run, rushing like cockroaches for the cover of darkness. But armed and united by the truth, justice will be done. As a consequence of the covert subversive overthrow of the United States government taking place in recent years, both the complete absence of rule of law and rampant treasonous failure to uphold the US Constitution, currently has Americans and people around the world waking up in righteous anger by the thousands every single day. Our founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson bestowed fundamental rights of liberty and freedom to every citizen, granting us clear-cut legal justification and guidelines to, in his words, “abolish” the illegitimate treasonous regime occupying Washington today. Taking into account the US government’s repeated terrorist acts constituting democide against its own American citizenry as well as having committed acts of war against US closest allies like Germany via the Nord Stream sabotage, the Biden regime’s intent to destroy both America and West must be opposed immediately. A growing majority of Americans disapprove of Biden’s job performance as imposter president, more so than any previous president in US modern history during the entire 78 years of presidential poll ratings. After the US Supreme Court declined the Brunson case out of Utah last month for a second time this year, the longshot effort to hold the vast majority of Congress accountable for illegally ratifying a fraudulent, rigged 2020 election has been thwarted. All three branches of government – the executive, legislative and judiciary, have systemically failed Americans by repeatedly violating the US Constitution in clear breech of their sworn oaths to uphold and defend. All three branches have committed treason for destroying our nation through reckless, willful crimes endangering both the American as well as global population, targeted for extermination by the elites. Nuremberg 2.0 needs to immediately be invoked for mass tribunal trials of multitudes of genocidal traitors determined to impose their diabolical, exposed depopulation agenda on humanity. The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the president that vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces,” reduce the power of the Federal Reserve and avert a decade long costly war in Vietnam, set the stage for the Deep State to fester and thrive ever since November 22, 1963. Every US president ever since has been a mere puppet for bloodline controllers to rape the earth and humanity in the name of the military industrial security Big Pharma complex. In this century the Khazarian mafia infested and controlled international criminal cabal manufactured their “new Pearl Harbor” 9/11, an Israeli-neocon grand Satanic blood sacrifice after the prewritten Patriot Act straight out of the dialectical “problem, reaction, solution” con-game playbook intended to strip away all Americans’ constitutional rights, a lose-lose our less freedom for less security and win-win for the Satanists, thinly disguised as collateral damage behind their fabricated war on terror against Muslim terrorists they create, train and finance as fake proxy war US enemies, supplementing their ongoing “war on drugs” to destroy African American families for the prison security complex, then when convenient again switch the revolving “enemy” back to the Russians and Chinese in Cold War #2 to drive humanity off the Armageddon cliff with today’s nuclear World War III countdown. And now along with the threat of a mushroom cloud, their enemy target today expands to a genocidal war against the entire human species with their fake pandemic/killer jab’s malevolent agenda to destroy national sovereignty via the United Nations’ World Health Organization, subversively imposing more fake or deadly health emergencies possessing an unlimited bioweapon arsenal bringing more draconian lockdowns, more killer mandates, along with their 15-minute smart cities control grid prison enslavement, planetwide mass surveillance, Chinese modeled social credit scores freezing dissidents’ bank accounts requiring digital ID approval and cashless World Bank Digital Currency, all part of their “Great Reset.” The globalists’ wet dream is our never-ending nightmare of absolute myopic control over the culled down, beaten down, traumatized, lobotomized population of jabbed, DNA altered, group hived, AI mind-controlled cyborg survivors. This is our bleak Lucifer controlled future if we remain weak, passive, defeated and ignorant. Activism is growing in a planetwide movement protesting against the Ukraine debacle along with the price inflation, smart cities and World Economic Forum’s enslavement. Legal challenges against the technocratic tyranny, the genocide, the wokist insanity. Our enemy is on notice and no doubt will be unleashing more false flags and WMDs at us, but the momentum of growing resistance and opposition is mobilizing for the long war. Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system. The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point the current diabolical pandemic hoax and genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, like Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https://jameshfetzer.org. As a published bestselling author on Amazon of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, his A-Z sourcebook series exposes the global pedophilia scourge is available free at https://pedoempire.org/contents/. Joachim also hosts the Revolution Radio weekly broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed,” every Friday morning at 6AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!). 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/2024/02/the-rothschild-deep-state-cabal-is-imploding/

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

Are You an Anti-Paxxer? 🇺🇸💊As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Don't fall for it! Are You an Anti-Paxxer? As doctors drop Paxlovid because of drug interactions and research shows it causes Covid rebounds and virus shedding, Pfizer and MSM crank the PR machine to hide the facts and shame "anti-paxxers." Linda Bonvie Pfizer has a big public relations push on for its controversial drug Paxlovid. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” When an article by Los Angeles Times metro reporter Rong-Gong Lin II recommended last month that practically everyone who tests positive for Covid takes Pfizer’s Paxlovid, some media veterans may have wondered what had become of the traditional wall between news reporting and advertising. The story, which appeared on January 28, swept away almost all of the reservations that have been raised about the safety and effectiveness of this patent medicine, assuring us that “Paxlovid rebound” is a non-issue and fear of serious side effects is “erroneous.” It even went so far as to suggest that if your doctor won’t prescribe this “highly effective” medication, it’s time to go doctor shopping. So why is this LA Times writer so desperately trying to sell us this fast-tracked antiviral that comes with a black box warning? The article appeared at a particularly critical time for Pfizer just as it transitions from Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA Paxlovid, to FDA-approved Paxlovid. Originally free to patients, the medication was stockpiled by the U.S. government to the tune of 24 million treatment courses at a cost to taxpayers of $530 a box. Now, the FDA-approved version (same drug, different box) sells for a list price of up to $1,500. (According to an analysis by researchers at Harvard University, the actual cost to Pfizer for a five-day Paxlovid course is $13). But to Pfizer’s chagrin, it now doesn’t seem to be able to even give the stuff away, let alone sell it at a premium price. Last fall Pfizer accepted a return of nearly 8 million boxes sent back by the U.S. government. What’s a drugmaker to do when both patients and doctors shun a product that was anticipated to be the better half of Pfizer’s post-Covid “multibillion-dollar franchise? Flush with all that Covid cash and new Paxlovid FDA approval last May, Pfizer went shopping for partners to help promote its products. No stranger to top-tier PR firms such as Edelman and Ogilvy, the drugmaker tagged two of the biggest names in contemporary communications companies, Publicis Groupe, a Paris-based giant PR and ad agency, and the humongous Interpublic Group. These high-level agencies come at a big price tag, but what they can offer is priceless—a way to get your story told by respected media outlets. That’s right, if you have enough money to hire the folks with all the right contacts, you too can create your own “news!” And these special contacts are something that PR firms, such as Edelman, are very proud of. Many agency hires, in fact, are recruited directly from major media outlets, such as Edelman NYC Brand Director Nancy Jeffrey, who spent a decade at the Wall Street Journal. As quoted in an Edelman website blog, Jeffrey recalls how Richard Edelman (son of founder Dan) would call her during her time working at the paper “to meet a client with a story to tell.” As Jeffrey says, “No one at Edelman ever rises too high to pitch a reporter.” So was our LA Times reporter “pitched,” or does he just have an evangelical connection with Paxlovid? Let’s take a close look at his story and see what we find. Side effects be gone! First, there’s the article’s headline, which began: “If it’s COVID, Paxlovid”? Getting your oft-advertised product’s rhyming tagline in a headline—now that’s branding! And we don’t have to tell any of the side effects in this venue. The LA Times piece was off to a great start. Why aren’t more people being given Paxlovid, the reporter wanted to know. It’s “cheap or even free for many,” he said. And then he delivered his first rave review, calling it “highly effective.” By paragraph four, however, our intrepid reporter had uncovered the bad news that “a number of doctors are still declining to prescribe it.” But why? It must be those pesky “outdated arguments” about “Paxlovid rebound.” Anyone who gets Covid “has a similar rare chance of rebound,” he told us. For extra punch, he called on Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, professor of medicine at UCSF, to back up that statement. Rebound is “like, bogus” and “just dumb,” Chin-Hong said. What Lin didn’t report is that a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2023, by researchers from Mass General Brigham, found that in Covid patients taking Paxlovid, rebound was “much more common” and often without symptoms. Nearly 21 percent had virologic rebound versus under 2 percent not on the drug. Of perhaps even more significance, prolonged viral shedding for an average of fourteen days was noted in those who rebounded, indicating that they “were potentially still contagious for much longer.” The virologic rebound “phenomenon,” in Paxlovid patients, the authors noted, “has implications for post-N-R (Paxlovid) monitoring and isolation recommendations.” This study closely monitored patients with follow-ups three times a week “sometimes for months.” After quoting from several Paxlovid-positive FDA and CDC statements and referencing a California Public Health commercial where people dance to an upbeat tune singing “Test it, treat it, beat it, California you know you need it,” Lin got around to some serious stuff—side effects. Not mentioned by Lin, but good to know anyway, Paxlovid bears an FDA-required black-box warning about drug interactions, cautioning of “potentially severe, life-threatening, or fatal events.” But the article carefully danced around this inconvenient issue, simply mentioning that some Paxlovid takers may need to have their medications adjusted. The fear of “serious side effects . . . is largely erroneous,” it claimed. Really? “There are 125 drug interactions (for Paxlovid) across twenty-five different classes of medicines,” author and FLCCC President Dr. Pierre Kory said in a phone interview. “I’ve never used any medicine that had that number and degree of drug interactions, and I find it absurd,” added Kory, who is an expert in early Covid treatment. And this is no secret. The Paxlovid package insert lists thirty-nine specific drugs that interact with this anti-viral (which is not a complete list, we’re warned) including medications that treat conditions such as an enlarged prostate, gout, migraines, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arrhythmias, and angina. With side effects out of the way, our reporter moved on to an interesting idea—doctor shopping. If your doctor turns you down for Paxlovid, “what other options are there?” How about “reaching out to another healthcare provider” we’re advised, one “who might be more knowledgeable about Paxlovid . . .” Don’t be an ‘Anti-Paxxer!’ The LA Times isn’t alone in this timely pushing of Paxlovid. The New York Times also ran a glowing Paxlovid piece at the beginning of January. The black-box warning was glossed over by simply saying that some “doctors balk” over the “long list of medications not to be mixed with Paxlovid,” referring to the drug as being “stunningly effective.” The NYT reporter also added five mentions of a study—actually a preprint (not yet peer reviewed or published)—which through the use of statistical magic concluded that during the course of the research had only half of the eligible Covid patients in the U.S. taken Paxlovid, 48,000 lives would have been saved. The server where the research was posted warns journalists and others when discussing preprints to “emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by the medical community and information presented may be erroneous.” Paxlovid is not the only drug that gets special treatment by the media. Last January, a 60 Minutes segment was called out by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine as “an unlawful weight loss drug ad” for the med Wegovy. The piece, it noted, “looked like a news story, but it was effectively a drug ad,” the group said in a press release. PCRM also stated that Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, paid over $100,000 to the doctors CBS interviewed for the segment. With this new frenzy to sell Paxlovid, one can’t help but compare it to the campaign against ivermectin. Kicked off by the FDA in August 2021, it successfully branded this Nobel Prize-winning, FDA-approved drug as nothing more than a horse dewormer endorsed by fanatical outlier doctors and accepted by gullible patients. Despite being found to be an extremely safe treatment as well as an effective one for Covid, the FDA, CDC, and its media “partners” made ivermectin the subject of false accusations and warnings about the supposed risks of using it. But early on in the game it was decided, as Dr. Kory pointed out, “to keep the market open for their novel pricey Paxlovid pill.” And to that effect, nothing was going to stand in the way. In an interview last summer with the head of the UCSF Department of Medicine, FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf admitted that he helped promote Paxlovid—something he acknowledged is explicitly against the rules. “In normal times, the FDA should not be a cheerleader . . .” Califf said. But since back then EUA drugs could not be advertised (a policy that changed in the fall of 2022) he went ahead and pitched it himself. The Paxlovid campaign is far from over. In fact, it may now be revving up to full throttle. There’s even a name being bandied about for those who question the drug: “Anti-Paxxers.” And if we can take any insight from the new Pfizer tagline (just filed for protection with the US Patent and Trademark Office), “Outdo Yesterday,” there are even more spurious strategies in its pharmaceutical pipeline. Full story:👇 https://rescue.substack.com/p/are-you-an-anti-paxxer Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/are-you-anti-paxxer-as-doctors-drop.html

‘Too big to fail’ was bad enough for the banks. Now we have ‘too many to fail.’ Last Updated: Feb. 13, 2024 at 1:20 p.m. ET People line up outside of the shuttered Silicon Valley Bank headquarters on March 10, 2023, in Santa Clara, Calif. Getty Images Almost a year after the mini banking crisis in the United States, it is worth revisiting the episode. Was it just a tempest in a teacup? Was there really a systemic threat, or was it just a problem with a few banks? Should the interventions by the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury worry or comfort us? Recall that three mid-size U.S. banks suddenly failed around March 2023. The most prominent was Silicon Valley Bank, which became the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, after Washington Mutual in 2008. Roughly 90% of the deposits at SVB were uninsured, and uninsured deposits are prone to runs. Making matters worse, SVB had invested significant sums in long-term bonds, the market value of which fell as interest rates rose. When SVB sold some of these holdings to raise funds, the unrealized losses embedded in its bond portfolio started coming to light. A failed equity offering then triggered a classic bank run. It is convenient to think that these issues were confined to just a few rogue banks. But the problem was systemic. When the Fed engages in quantitative easing (QE), it buys bonds from financial institutions. Typically, those sellers then deposit the money in their bank, and this results in a large increase in uninsured deposits in the banking system. On the banks’ asset side, there is a corresponding increase in central-bank reserves. This is stable, since reserves are the most liquid asset on the planet and can be used to satisfy any impatient depositors who come for their money. Unfortunately, a number of smaller banks (with less than $50 billion in assets) moved away from this stable position as QE continued. Historically, smaller U.S. banks financed themselves conservatively, with uninsured demandable deposits accounting for only around 10% of their liabilities. Yet by the time the Fed was done with its pandemic-era QE, these banks’ uninsured demandable deposits exceeded 30% of liabilities. Though that level was still far below SVB’s, these institutions clearly had drunk from the same firehose. Smaller banks were also more conservative about liquidity in the past. At the outset of QE in late 2008, banks with less than $50 billion in assets had reserves (and other assets that could be used to borrow reserves) that exceeded the uninsured demandable deposits they had issued. By early 2023, however, they had issued runnable claims (in aggregate) that were one and a half times the size of their liquid assets. Instead of holding liquid reserves, their assets were now more weighted toward long-term securities and term lending, including a significant share of commercial real-estate (CRE) loans. Advertisement Thus, as the Fed raised interest rates, the economic value of these banks’ assets fell sharply. Some of the fall was hidden by accounting sleight of hand, but SVB’s sudden demise caused investors to scrutinize banks’ balance sheets more carefully. What they saw did not instill confidence. The KBW Nasdaq Bank Index duly fell by over 25%, and deposits started flowing out of a large number of banks, many of which lacked the liquidity to accommodate the sudden outflows. The risk of contagious runs across smaller banks was real, as was the possibly of the problem spreading more widely. The Treasury essentially took bank runs off the table, while the Fed provided banks the funds to accommodate the continuing — though no longer panicked — depositor outflows. Importantly, as private money flowed to large banks, very little flowed to small- and medium-size institutions. That is why the authorities had to come to the rescue. Soon after SVB’s demise, the Treasury signaled that no uninsured depositor in small banks would suffer losses in any further bank collapses. The Fed opened a generous new facility that lent money for up to one year to banks against the par, or face value, of the securities they held on their balance sheets, without adjusting for the erosion in the value of these securities from higher interest rates. And the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks) — effectively an arm of the U.S. government — increased its lending to stressed banks, with total advances to the banking system having already tripled between March 2022 and March 2023 amid the Fed’s policy tightening. Borrowing by small- and medium-size banks from these official sources skyrocketed. The Treasury essentially took bank runs off the table, while the Fed provided banks the funds to accommodate the continuing — though no longer panicked — depositor outflows. A potential banking crisis was converted into a slow-burning problem for banks as they recognized and absorbed the losses on their balance sheets. Just recently, New York Community Bancorp NYCB, -5.17%, which bought parts of one of the banks that failed in 2023, reminded us that this process is still underway when it announced large losses. With the Russell microcap index of small companies significantly underperforming the S&P 100 index OEX of the largest companies since March 2023, it appears that smaller banks’ troubles have weighed on their traditional clients: small- and medium-size companies. Where does that leave us? Although the situation could have been much worse if the Treasury and the Fed had not stepped in, the seeming ease with which the panic was arrested allowed public attention to move on. Apart from die-hard libertarians, no one seems to care much about the extent of the intervention that was needed to rescue the smaller banks, nor has there been any broad inquiry into the circumstances that led to the vulnerabilities. As a result, several questions remain unanswered. To what extent were the seeds of the 2023 banking stress sown by the pandemic-induced monetary stimulus and lax supervision of what banks did with the money? Did advances by the FHLBanks delay failed banks’ efforts to raise capital? Are banks that relied on official backstops after SVB’s failure keeping afloat distressed CRE borrowers, and therefore merely postponing an eventual reckoning? It is not good for capitalism when those who knowingly take risks — bankers and uninsured depositors, in this case — pay no price when a risk materializes. Despite sweeping banking reforms over the past 15 years, the authorities have once again shown that they are willing to bail out market players if enough of them have taken the same risk. “Too big to fail” was bad enough, but now we have “too many to fail.” The mini-crisis of March 2023 was much more than a footnote in banking history. We cannot afford to bury it. Raghuram G. Rajan, a former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the author, most recently, of Monetary Policy and Its Unintended Consequences (The MIT Press, 2023). Viral V. Acharya, a former deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India, is professor of economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business. This commentary was published with the permission of Project Syndicate — The Danger of Forgetting the 2023 Banking Crisis. More: Regional-bank bondholders seem unworried by New York Community Bank’s problems Also read: Recession in 2024? A quarter of economists think it will happen. 😎🇺🇸🦅 PAR-TY… 🎉. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/too-big-to-fail-was-bad-enough-for-the-banks-now-we-have-too-many-to-fail-d89dcdda

🆘 For those who say “Nothing’s Happening” 1. President Clinton confirmed on Epstein list. 2. Iraq says “No More USD exchange” inside the country. 3. NATO full panic mode — planning to false_flag themselves and blame Russia. 4. SCOTUS accepts filing alleging Jack Smith is an illegal special counsel. 5. Public confirmation that DJT never went to Epstein Island. 6. Genocide in Gaza confirmed by multiple alt-media/citizen journalists worldwide. Official case accepted by ICJ. 7. Tucker Carlson/Russell Brand say the words “spiritual warfare”, and “C19 was a bioweapon” on Tucker’s show, 3 weeks after Tucker basically proved Epstein didn’t kill himself. 8. Former Counsel in US FDIC office overseeing commercial banking sector, sentenced to prison for child pornography/assault. 9. WeThePeople protests now choking off transit in multiple Western nations. 10. “Alien” seed firmly planted in the consciousness in Miami, FL. And we’re just 1 month in … #MAGA2024 Subscribe for more: https://t.me/+JE46W1v_nw8wODBk ✅️

Luciferase Microarray Patches Contain DARPA Hydrogel & Autonomous Insect Cyborg Sentinels June 21, 2023 by Dr. Ariyana Love By Dr. Ariyana Love Queensland’s first needle-free “vaccine” facility just opened in Australia, yesterday. The microarray patch for intradermal delivery technology is also being called a Nanopatch and it’s aimed at our children. 3D printed microarray patches (MAP’s) are comprised of a series of micrometer-sized projections that can painlessly puncture the skin and access the epidermal/dermal layer, delivering drugs and chemicals into the interstitial fluids of the human body. It also allows for external control of delayed release of drugs and repeated dosage over time. This technology was already being developed back in the 1970’s. In May of 2023, Micron Biomedical announced Phase 1/2 data from the first-ever clinical trial of a “vaccine” patch in children – including infants as young as nine months old. This study was tested on Gambian children. In October of 2022, the first official Luciferase patch trial on children using a placebo, began in Brisbane, Australia. The trial was led by Vaxxas. A number of phase-one clinical trials in adults were already conducted by Vaxxas according to Project Manager, Ben Baker. Vaxxas, founded by UQ commercialization company UniQuest in 2011, received $A30 million (US$22 million) through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to support “pandemic” deployment of their high-density micro-array patch (HD-MAP). Vaxxas is partnered with the U.S. Government and funded by Bill and Melinda Gates. The microarray patch is supposedly intended to inoculate children from middle to low income countries with measles, rubella, and polio. This microarray patch technology is scheduled to be mandated for children worldwide and it’s on the national immunization schedule for children in Australia. UNICEF is driving the research, development and scale of microarray patches for children. They’re keen on “identifying barriers for scaling and investigating the need for market pull incentives to spark interest and endorsement by vaccine manufacturers.” And of course the World Harm Organization (WHO) is involved with pushing the measles-rubella microarray patch on children. DNA from human origin The antibody used in the microarray (MA) patches comes from human origin, according to scientific literature (See paragraph #4 and 2.2. Antibody Stability Study). The patches use “nonspecific human Ig” and the “human hlg” which is a human leukocyte antigen, as well as other “nonspecific” amounts of human DNA plasma, including human lgG1 and human lgG2. It is well known that injecting human DNA into humans induces inflammation, autoimmunity and rapid cancer growth. The core–shell MA patch has two delayed burst releases at days 10 and 21. Included in the patches is the use of “nondegradable poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) (EVA, for the sustained release of human DNA), hyaluronic acid scaffolds, glycol chitosan, and oxidized alginate hydrogels.” (See paragraph two). Glycol chitosan is insect DNA which is highly toxic to humans. It has never been approved by the FDA for use in humans. Hyaluronic acid based scaffolds is used for tissue engineering and so is synthetic mRNA. Johnson and Johnson developed the Luciferase microarray patch (See paragraph entitled, 2.3. Vector) containing the Adenovirus 5 vector for targeted deletion of the E1 and E3 genes, located on the X-chromosome. PLEASE READ: EPIGENETICS: Vaccines Are Deleting Human Genes & Transfecting Cells With Ebola/Marburg This scientific paper reveals that Luciferase hydrogel is chimeric DNA from cross species genomic splicing. The Luciferase patches are being marketed (See bottom of page) as something that will “reduce the rate of HIV infections”. Incidentally, governments are coercing schools to mandate HIV testing of children. DARPA hydrogel The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is a research and development agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the development of emerging technologies for use by the military. DARPA’s hydrogel replicates into rectangular crystal structures within minutes after coming into contact with body fluids. It grows a crystalline sheath above your muscle and beneath your skin which is magnetic. It acts as an antennae inside the human body that can transmit your internal data through the Internet and receive commands from towers as it replicates and expands throughout the entire body. Whole parasite “vaccines” Also contained within some embodiment’s of the DARPA hydrogel patches are Sentinels. Under a highly classified program DARPA has been weaponizing insects for decades such as GMO mosquitos that carry GMO parasite eggs coded with synthetic mRNA. These parasite eggs are otherwise known as “whole parasite vaccines“. PLEASE READ: Malaria Parasites In “Vaccines” Target Placenta, Kill Babies In Utero This peer-reviewed paper discusses “Cyropreserved Whole-Parasite Vaccines” using the deadly P. falciparum Malaria parasite to target in particular, the CD4+ T cells and destroy them by inducing cell death. Please also read here, here and here. The Sentinels Sentinels are also found within the DARPA hydrogel Luciferase microarray patches. DARPA has a full Hybrid Insect MEMS program called “Sentinel”. The D.O.D. is also in on this. Much of the funding for this project comes from DARPA’s Microsystems Technology Office (MTO), which has devoted more than US$2 million to the Hybrid Insect MEMS (HI-MEMS) program. Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), otherwise known as micromachined devices uses organic insects that have been morphed into externally controllable electromechanical devices and ‘living’ biosensors, using genetically modified microorganisms. Micro-mechanical systems are placed inside the insects during the early stages of metamorphosis, allowing for tissue-machine interface and control over insect locomotion. Insect cyborgs have most of the machine component inside the insect body providing stealthy robots that use muscle actuators. Motion trajectories are obtained either from GPS coordinates, or using RF, optical, ultrasonic signals based remote control. The Sentinels work as microsensors and they also can modulate light beams. Through heterogeneous integration, they have merged the Sentinels into a circuitry nanotech system. While this is a highly classified and secretive project, there’s a paper trail. In 2018, the U.S. Government awarded DARPA a research and development contract funding DARPA’s SENTINEL # HR001118S0005 project to the tune of 10 million dollars. The first Sentinel patent was registered by GeneNews, in 2010. The second Sentinel patent # 7,662,558, entitled “Method of profiling gene expression in a human subject” was registered in 2018. But who could anticipate that Sentinels would be used inside the human body? Since 2009, Sentinels have been used internally for a breast cancer excision. They can slice right through tumors which explains why my clients are being internally lacerated by these Sentinels, inflicting terrible pain and causing red skin lesions to appear. Also according to client testimonials and peer-reviewed literature, Sentinels shoot out electromagnetic beams and attempt to influence your nervous system using electricity. They borrow into the nervous system and can “read thoughts,” anticipate your movements and attempt to control their host. The hydrogel-based encapsulation (nanotech) system for genetically modified organisms (GMMs) incorporates a biocompatible multilayer tough shell and an alginate-based core. Sentinels are the core controller of the Operating System. They regulate cell to cell communication between the AI parasites, organoids, hydras, worms and poisonous anaerobic bacteria in vivo, as the linked document shows. “Microelectronic integrated circuits can be thought of as the “brains” of a system and MEMS augments this decision-making capability with “eyes” and “arms”, to allow microsystems to sense and control the environment. Sensors gather information from the environment through measuring mechanical, thermal, biological, chemical, optical, and magnetic phenomena. The electronics then process the information derived from the sensors and through some decision making capability direct the actuators to respond by moving, positioning, regulating, pumping, and filtering, thereby controlling the environment for some desired outcome or purpose. Furthermore, because MEMS devices are manufactured using batch fabrication techniques, similar to ICs, unprecedented levels of functionality, reliability, and sophistication can be placed on a small silicon chip at a relatively low cost.” DARPA openly admits to using AI for brain computer interface with humans through it’s Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) program. Sentinels are contained within a small silicon chip that looks very similar to the chips Dr. Pablo Campra found in the Covid-19 vials. In 2017, Finland developed nanocellulose-alginate hydrogel suitable for 3D printing. Implantable hydrogel biosensors are scheduled to be used in Covid-19 inoculations and microarray patches. Hillman Laboratories partnered with John Hopkins University, admit that they want to “take the microarray patches door to door“. One of my clients was a victim of a U.S. government pilot project in Seattle Washington. GMO mosquitos are being unleashed in Florida and other states as well. My client, her daughter and best friend were congregated at a church function outdoors when they were “beaten by mosquito’s,” as she put it. These mosquito’s were smaller than the typical mosquitos they have in Washington state and they had unusual markings. They could not feel the bites but saw the mosquito’s biting. Later, people from the congregation broke out in welts where they were bitten and had terrible pains all over their bodies. Now my client and her daughter are riddled with Sentinels which crawl everywhere in their bodies and torture them. These Sentinels belong to DARPA’s weaponized insects project. My clients best friend could not endure and she died before they discovered my protocols. I have several other clients whom are being tortured by Sentinels and my protocols are helping them. Other clients have already detoxed the Sentinel and DARPA hydrogel out of their bodies. ALSO READ: “YIKES! Hydrogel Nano-biotechnology in Vaccines and Nasal Swab Tests Capable of Electronically Linking Human Brains to Cloud Wirelessly” by State of The Nation. Please consider donating to Dr. Ariyana Love’s investigative research and ministry, here. If you require a health consultation please schedule with Dr. Love, here. Contact Dr. Love at [email protected] or call her cell at +1 928-892-8736. Follow Dr. Love on Telegram @DrAriyanaLove and on Twitter @drloveariyana. https://ambassadorlove.blog/2023/06/21/luciferase-microarray-patches-contain-darpa-hydrogel-autonomous-insect-cyborg-sentinels/

Israeli snipers, tanks, drones positioned to fire on any signs of life in Khan Younis – Day 109 [email protected] January 24, 2024 famine, houthi, israeli settlement, israeli soldiers killed, khan younis, starvation, Supreme Court, uscpr, West Bank Israeli snipers, tanks, drones positioned to fire on any signs of life in Khan Younis – Day 109 Attacks in the latest 24-hour reporting period killed at least 195 Palestinians and wounded 354 with thousands more victims believed to be under the rubble and unreachable. (photo) Khan Younis in south the site of intense fighting, peril; info on US teen Tawfiq Ajaq killed by Israel; starvation; Israelis in US to buy weapons; 24 Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza; West Bank death; Israeli settlements in Gaza?; Houthi update; US Supreme Court dismisses case against Palestine advocacy organization By IAK staff, from reports Middle East Eye reports on the dire situation in Khan Younis: With Israeli snipers and tanks positioned to fire on any signs of life, Palestinians across Khan Younis are under siege with nowhere to go… Ambulances have been unable to reach the wounded across Khan Younis, after the headquarters of the Palestinian Red Crescent (PCRS) was surrounded by Israel’s military. Israeli drones shot at anyone moving near al-Amal hospital, the PCRS said on Tuesday… For several days, Palestinians in Khan Younis have raised alarm bells about Israeli tanks closing in on Nasser Hospital – the largest functional medical facility in Gaza. They fear it will suffer the same fate as al-Shifa hospital in the north, which effectively shut down after a sustained Israeli siege in mid-November last year. A doctor at Nasser Hospital described the chaotic scenes in the vicinity of the complex. “We have got news today from the Israeli army to evacuate block number 107. This block actually contains schools, hospitals and houses…People actually were trying to evacuate this block but they couldn’t. All above and around me, explosions and gunshot can be heard, and are being fired over our heads.” Dina, 36, was told to evacuate block 107 with 23 members of her family. “They lie to us. They just change the place where they intend to kill us…We are experiencing hunger, pain, and cold, and the world is just watching. Where should we go?” she said. The New Arab adds: The Israeli army has fired directly at a hospital in the southern city of Khan Younis, where civilians are caught amid heavy fighting…Israeli tanks were “firing heavily on the upper floors of the specialized surgery building and the emergency building of Nasser hospital, dozens expected wounded”, a ministry statement said. From OCHA: In Khan Younis, Israeli forces hit a warehouse, killing 2 and cutting off access to humanitarian supplies and critical water and sanitation equipment; heavy bombardment near a distribution center where families go to receive aid; latest evacuation orders: an area that hosts 500,000 people, mostly already displaced. While most US news media ignored Israel’s killing of American 17-year-old Tawfiq Ajaq, shot dead by Israeli forces on Jan. 19 in the West Bank, News Nation interviewed family members: “Tawfiq Ajaq was a free spirit who enjoyed the outdoors and hanging with friends.” “Bright kid, had a lot of dreams, would joke, laugh make fun of me, his mom, his brothers. He loves the woods, he loves to be out and about. … He just likes to be out with friends and just be free,” his father said. “Ajaq’s relative, Joe Abdel Qaki, said that Ajaq and a friend were having a barbecue in a village field when he was shot by Israeli fire, once in the head and once in the chest.” He said Israeli forces briefly detained him and other Palestinians at the scene, asking for their IDs before the men could get to Ajaq. The boy’s father implored Americans to “see with their own eyes” the ongoing violence in the West Bank. “The American society does not know the true story,” he said. “Come here on the ground and see what’s going on. … How many fathers and mothers have to say goodbye to their children? How many more?” On Monday, he called out the Biden administration for continuing to provide military support to Israel. The medical group Doctors Without Borders (Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF) says that several blocks in Khan Younis, including those where Nasser Hospital is located, have received orders to evacuate. “MSF staff members can hear bombs and heavy gunfire close to Nasser,” the group said in a social media post on Tuesday. “They are currently unable to evacuate along with the thousands of people in the hospital, including 850 patients, due to roads to and from the building being either inaccessible or too dangerous.” Hamas reportedly called on the UN, Red Cross and World Health Organization to step in “immediately” and “shoulder their responsibilities” to stop Israel’s attacks on Gaza’s hospitals, saying that the Nasser and El Amal hospitals in Khan Younis are being directly targeted with Israeli drone fire and bombardment, endangering the lives of patients, medics, and thousands of displaced people taking shelter in the medical centers. “The deliberate and ongoing targeting of hospitals is a war crime unfolding in front of the eyes and ears of the entire world, and it comes in the context of Israel’s genocidal war against our people in the Gaza Strip, with the full support of the American administration,” the group said in a statement. Targeting hospitals is a war crime. Palestinian children wait to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen amid shortages of food supplies in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, on January 16, 2024 Palestinian children wait to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen amid shortages of food supplies in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, on January 16, 2024 (photos) Al Jazeera reports: The speed at which “starvation” has been brought about among Gaza’s population is “unprecedented”, according to Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the US. “I’ve been studying this for 40 years and I’ve never seen a population reduced [to this level of hunger] with the same speed and rigor and ruthlessness,” De Waal told Al Jazeera. “An entire population being reduced to this stage is really unprecedented. We haven’t seen it in Ethiopia, in Sudan and Yemen – pretty much anywhere else in the world,” he said. De Waal said that while all famines are political acts, he described the current food crisis in Gaza as a “military act” by Israel that amounts to the “war crime of starvation”. “[The destruction of] food, medicine, water and sanitation is being done on a scale that I don’t think we have witnessed anywhere else in the contemporary world,” he added. More information is here. Middle East Monitor reports: Israel’s Kan TV declared on Monday, “A high-level Israeli security delegation arrived this afternoon [Monday] in the United States to attend meetings with officials in the American army and the American military and defense industries…to push for immediate purchase deals to continue the fighting [in Gaza], and to prevent a shortage of ammunition and weapons.” According to the same source, the Israeli delegation is seeking to reach a major deal that “includes supplying Israel with thousands of ammunitions for warplanes, with missiles and bombs, as well as tank and artillery shells, armored vehicles, and additional military equipment that will allow the Israeli army to continue the war in Gaza, and a possible war in Lebanon.” RECOMMENDED READING: Against every instinct: How doctors in Gaza persevere amid Israel attacks Al Jazeera reports on a speech that Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki gave to the UN Security Council: The faith of the perpetrators is irrelevant. The faith of the victims is irrelevant. What matters only are the countless innocent lives destroyed and the violent shattering of the laws enacted post-World War II to preserve humanity. [Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is driven by] his own political survival at the expense of the survival of millions of Palestinians under Israel’s illegal occupation and peace and security for all. Norway’s Deputy Foreign Minister Andreas Motzfeldt Kravik reiterated his country’s support for the two-state solution after meeting with Jordanian officials Tuesday. This is one of a number of recent expressions of support for Palestinian rights and/or a two-state solution. Others include UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Keir Starmer, leader of the UK Labor Party, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell, French Foreign Minister, Stéphane Séjourné, Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares, China’s ambassador to the UN Zhang Jun, Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan, and others. Associated Press reports: Palestinian militants carried out the deadliest single attack on Israeli forces in Gaza since the Hamas raid that triggered the war, killing 21 soldiers, the military said Tuesday, a significant setback that could add to mounting calls for a cease-fire. 3 more soldiers were killed in a separate incident. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu mourned the Israeli soldiers, who died when the blast from a rocket-propelled grenade triggered explosives they were laying to blow up buildings. But he vowed to press ahead until “absolute victory,” including crushing Hamas and freeing more than 100 Israeli hostages still held by the militants. Israelis are increasingly questioning whether it’s possible to achieve those war aims. WEST BANK: WAFA reports: Israeli forces Tuesday evening shot and killed a young Palestinian man at a checkpoint east of Tulkarm, in the northern occupied West Bank. The Ministry of Health said that the soldiers prevented ambulances from reaching the young man, who was later identified as 21-year-old Kareem Nashaat Ayesh. He died of his critical wounds shortly after. RECOMMENDED READING: Israel’s rising use of drone strikes in the West Bank Al Jazeera reports: Israeli ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan has again railed against calls for a ceasefire, saying that the Middle East is suffering from a “cancer” and that Israel will not accept the continued existence of Hamas. “Shockingly, many here on the Security Council are advocating for a permanent ceasefire, while giving no thought to the implications,” Erdan said. “What do you think will happen if there is a ceasefire? I will tell you what will happen: Hamas will remain in power, they will regroup and rearm, and soon Israelis will face another attempted Holocaust.” In reality, international law supports the efforts of resistance groups against an occupying power, even to the point of armed resistance. Hamas has clearly and. openly stated that its enemy is not the Jewish people, but the racist ideology of Zionism – the ideology under which Israel dispossessed 750,000 Palestinian people and exiled them to Gaza and other locations. A view of the makeshift tent camp where Palestinians displaced by the Israeli ground offensive on the Gaza Strip are staying, in Rafah, January 23, 2024 A view of the makeshift tent camp where Palestinians displaced by the Israeli ground offensive on the Gaza Strip are staying, in Rafah, January 23, 2024 (photo) Times of Israel reports: Two Likud ministers are promoting an upcoming conference that calls for the reestablishment of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip as a way to boost security for Israel after the war against the people of Gaza ends. The conference, under the heading “Only settlement will bring security,” is organized by a group of movements that want to resettle Gaza, led by Samaria Regional Council head Yossi Dagan and the Nachala Settlement Movement. It is scheduled for Sunday in Jerusalem. In order to settle in Gaza, Israel would have to transfer Palestinians out of the Strip. Israeli settlements and settlers on Palestinian land are a violation of international law. Forced transfer of a people group is a crime against humanity. HOUTHI UPDATE: The US Department of Defense reports: U.S. and partner forces launched additional defensive strikes against military targets in Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen yesterday…the second round of precision strikes to be carried out by the U.S. and United Kingdom with support from Australia, Bahrain, Canada and the Netherlands in response to a series of attacks launched by the [allegedly] Iran-backed group against commercial ships operating in the Red Sea. “These precision strikes are intended to disrupt and degrade the capabilities that the Houthis use to threaten global trade and the lives of innocent mariners, and are in response to a series of illegal, dangerous and destabilizing Houthi actions since our coalition strikes on January 11, including anti-ship ballistic missile and unmanned aerial system attacks that struck two U.S.-owned merchant vessels,” the partner nations said in a joint statement following the strikes. The reason for the Houthi threat, which the US has yet to address, is Israel’s brutal war against Gaza. Additionally, British prime minister Rishi Sunak has told the House of Commons, “We’re going to use the most effective means at our disposal to cut off the Houthis’ financial resources, where they are used to fund these attacks. We are working closely with the United States on this and plan to announce new sanctions measures in the coming days.” US Central Command also reported: In response to attacks by the Iranian-backed militia group Kataib Hezbollah (KH), including the attack on al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq on Jan. 20, on Jan. 24 at 12:15 a.m., U.S. CENTCOM forces conducted unilateral airstrikes against three facilities used by Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia group and other Iran-affiliated groups in Iraq. Palestine make history sealing their passage to the knockout stages of the AFC Asian Cup for the first time in their history. Palestine make history sealing their passage to the knockout stages of the AFC Asian Cup for the first time in their history. (photo) The Center for Constitutional Rights reports: Today, a U.S.-based Palestinian rights organization prevailed when the Supreme Court refused to take up a lawsuit brought by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and several U.S. citizens who live in Israel. Citing the speech and expressive activities of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), including its support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the lawsuit had argued that the group provided “material support” for terrorism. The dismissal by the district court had been unanimously affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This lawsuit is just one example of a long line of efforts to silence Palestinians for advocating for their freedom – in this case, by wielding the accusation of support for terrorism to discredit and dehumanize Palestinians for their advocacy, including their support for boycotts. In dismissing the suit in March 2021, the lower court said the arguments were, “to say the least, not persuasive.” Advocates say the suit is part of a broader effort to criminalize and silence the political activities of supporters of Palestinian rights, a threat that has only increased as Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza intensifies. “USCPR’s message is justice for all and an end to funding genocide. There’s no lawsuit in the world that can stop us from pushing our demands for human rights,” said Ahmad Abuznaid, Executive Director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. “We will remain focused on opposing Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people and pursuing justice and freedom for the Palestinian people.” RECOMMENDED READING: ‘Negligence’: Columbia University students furious at administration after skunk water doused on protesters More information on Day 109 is here. STATISTICS OCTOBER 7 – JANUARY 23: Palestinian death toll from October 7 – January 23: at least 25,877* (~25,490 in Gaza* (over 11,000 children, 7,500 women), and at least 387 in the West Bank (98 children). This does not include an estimated 7,000 more still buried under rubble (70% women and children). Euro-Med Monitor reports 32,246 Palestinian deaths. About 1.7 million people have been displaced (about 85% of the population). Palestinian injuries from October 7 – January 23: at least 67,702** (including at least 63,354 in Gaza and 4,348 in the West Bank). Israeli forces killed American teen Tawfiq Hafiz Ajjaq from Louisiana in the West Bank on January 19. It remains unknown how many additional Americans are among the casualties. Reported Israeli death toll from October 7 – January 23: ~1,139 (9 killed in West Bank, 219 in Gaza), including 32 Americans, and 8,730 injured, approximately 36 children). NOTE: It is unknown at this time how many of the deaths and injuries in Israel may have been caused by Israeli soldiers; additionally, since Israel has a policy of universal conscription, it is unknown how many of those attending the outdoor rave a few miles from Gaza on stolen Palestinian land were Israeli soldiers. *Previously, IAK did not include 471 Gazans killed in the Al Ahli hospital blast since the source of the projectile was being disputed. However, given that much evidence points to Israel as the culprit, Israel had previously bombed the hospital and has attacked many others, Israel is prohibiting outside experts from investigating the scene, and since the UN and other agencies are including the deaths from the attack in their cumulative totals, if Americans knew is now also doing so. Find previous daily casualty figures and daily news updates here. For more news, go here and here. Broadcast news from the region is here. Hover over each bar for exact numbers. Source: IsraelPalestineTimeline.org 12 Essential Facts for Understanding the Current Israel-Gaza Violence The West’s complete contempt for the lives of Palestinians will not be forgotten Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers Why the Guardian’s ‘Hamas mass rape’ story doesn’t pass the sniff test Israel’s torture and humiliation of female and male Gazan prisoners Coverage of Gaza War in NYTimes & other major papers heavily favored Israel, analysis shows Two reports debunk New York Times ‘investigative report’ of mass rape on October 7th John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza Flashback: Israeli Journalist said Israel is pushing US into war with Iran Israel’s Assault on Gaza Is Unlike Any War in Recent Memory US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war What media reports fail to tell you about October 7 https://israelpalestinenews.org/israeli-snipers-tanks-drones-positioned-fire-life-khan-younis-day-109/

Cockroach Milk: A Promising Superfood or Nothing but Hype? The term “superfood” has become quite popular in recent years. Nutritionally speaking, there is no such thing. However, certain foods have been called superfoods for marketing purposes if they are considered nutrient-rich and have been associated with health benefits. Recently, cockroach milk has been coined as an up-and-coming superfood, as it’s said to be incredibly nutritious and healthy. This article explains what cockroach milk is, including its possible benefits and drawbacks. CockroachesShare on Pinterest Cockroach milk is a protein rich, crystallized substance produced by a specific type of cockroach called Diploptera punctata (1Trusted Source). This species is unique because it gives birth to live offspring. Members make “milk” in the form of protein crystals to serve as food for their developing young (1Trusted Source). In recent years, scientists have discovered that this milk-like crystalline substance is nutritious and considered a complete food, as it’s a good source of protein, carbs, and fats. Additionally, cockroach milk is considered a complete protein source, as it provides all nine essential amino acids ⁠— the building blocks of protein that can only be attained through your diet (2Trusted Source). This fact is important because most non-meat foods lack one or more of the nine essential amino acids, which is why cockroach milk has gained buzz as a nondairy milk alternative (2Trusted Source). However, harvesting this milk-like substance is currently a labor-intensive process. It involves killing a female cockroach and her embryos once it begins to lactate and then harvesting the crystals from its midgut (3). According to one of the co-authors of a popular study on cockroach milk, it’s currently infeasible to mass-produce cockroach milk. The co-author estimates that it would take killing more than 1,000 cockroaches to make just 3.5 ounces (100 grams) of the milk (3, 4). Summary Cockroach milk is a protein rich, crystallized substance produced by the Diploptera punctata cockroach as a source of nourishment for its young. Although it’s very nutritious, it’s difficult to mass-produce. Currently, there is limited research on the health benefits of cockroach milk. As such, this section explores its potential benefits based on its composition. High in nutrients Cockroach milk has gained buzz as a superfood due to its nutritional content. In fact, lab research has shown that it’s more than three times as nutritious as cow’s milk, buffalo milk, and human breast milk (2Trusted Source). Given that cockroach milk isn’t commercially produced, general nutritional information is unavailable. However, a 1977 lab analysis showed that it comprises the following (5): 45% protein 25% carbs 16–22% fat (lipids) 5% amino acids Moreover, analyses have shown that the milk is a good source of other nutrients, such as oleic acid, linoleic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and short- and medium-chain fatty acids (2Trusted Source, 5). Also, it’s a nondairy milk alternative that is a complete source of protein, providing all nine essential amino acids. This is rare in non-meat foods, as they tend to lack one or more of them, making cockroach milk a unique alternative. May be an option for people with lactose intolerance or milk allergies Lactose intolerance is a common condition that affects 65% of people worldwide (6Trusted Source). It’s caused by a deficiency in lactase — an enzyme that digests lactose, the sugar in dairy products. Symptoms of lactose intolerance include diarrhea, bloating, stomach pain, nausea, and gassiness after consuming dairy products (6Trusted Source). Because cockroach milk is a nondairy product, it’s naturally lactose-free. This means it could be a suitable alternative for people with lactose intolerance or an allergy to cow’s milk. That said, note that there is no shortage of lactose-free dairy milk options that are nutritionally equivalent to cow’s milk and well tolerated by those who have difficulty with lactose. What’s more, it’s rich in key nutrients, such as protein and fatty acids, which tend to be found in lower levels in nondairy milk products. This may make cockroach milk a desirable alternative to cow’s milk from a health perspective (2Trusted Source). Summary Cockroach milk is very high in nutrients and lactose-free, making it a theoretically suitable nondairy milk alternative. Though cockroach milk is a unique nondairy milk alternative, it has several downsides. For starters, although it’s nutritious, it’s very high in calories. One cup (250 ml) of cockroach milk would contain around 700 calories. That’s more than three times the number of calories in a cup of regular cow’s milk. That means consuming too much cockroach milk could lead to weight gain. In addition, there’s currently no research demonstrating that cockroach milk is safe for human consumption. So vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, should avoid consuming it (7Trusted Source). Moreover, cockroach milk isn’t the most ethical drink. According to a co-author of the famous cockroach milk study, making just a single glass of the drink would involve killing thousands of cockroaches (4). Lastly, cockroach milk is not currently readily available and unlikely to become affordable in the future given the difficulty involved in producing it. Plus, many people would find the idea of drinking cockroach milk unappetizing. Summary Cockroach milk has several downsides. It is very high in calories, backed by limited research, and quite unethical and difficult to produce. Thus, it’s not commercially available. Cockroach milk is a milk-like, protein rich, crystalline substance produced by cockroaches of the Diploptera punctata species. It serves as nutrition for their young, but humans can harvest this milk by killing female cockroaches and extracting it from their midgut. Dated lab analyses from 1997 show that cockroach milk is incredibly nutritious, providing plenty of carbs, fat, vitamins, minerals, protein, and all nine essential amino acids. Plus, it’s lactose-free. That said, it has been poorly researched and is unlikely to become commercially available. Thus, it cannot be recommended as a nondairy milk alternative. The buzz around this product is just hype for now. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cockroach-milk-nutrition

‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 106: Israel bombs Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, U.S. bombs Yemen Biden insists Netanyahu is open to a two-state solution, despite Netanyahu stating the opposite. Meanwhile, a Palestinian-American teenager was killed by Israelis in the West Bank, and the UN estimates two mothers are killed in Gaza every hour. Mondoweiss Palestine BureauJanuary 20, 2024 A Palestinian child istreated on the floor of a hospital after being injured in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza (APA Images) An injured Palestinian woman looks over a child being treated on the floor of a hospital after they were injured in Israeli air strikes on December 30, 2023 in Dair El-Balah, Gaza. (Photo: APA Images) Casualties: 24,927 killed* and at least 62,388 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 369 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147. 550 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, including 194 since the beginning of the ground invasion, and at least 3,221 injured.** *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on January 20. Some rights groups put the death toll at more than 32,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. **This figure is released by the Israeli military. Key Developments Israel continues to relentlessly kill Palestinians in Gaza, as more reports emerge of torture and executions of Palestinians by Israeli forces. The United Nations says that two mothers are killed every hour on average in Gaza, as it denounces the disproportionate impact of the violence on women. An Israeli airstrike in the Syrian capital kills at least four Iranian military advisers. U.S. forces meanwhile launch the sixth wave of airstrikes on Yemen in a self-avowedly unsuccessful bid to deter Houthi rebels from disrupting commercial shipping in the Red Sea in support of Palestine. Israelis shoot and kill a Palestinian-American teenager in the head in the occupied West Bank. An Israeli airstrike kills two people in southern Lebanon. U.S. President Joe Biden has his first call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in nearly a month, and tells journalists that Netanyahu is in favor of a two-state solution, despite all evidence to the contrary. Israel’s emergency government meanwhile teeters on the brink of collapse amid internal discord and unilateral moves by Netanyahu threatening a hostage deal. The European Union’s chief diplomat says Israel bears responsibility for the existence of Hamas, and argues that a diplomatic solution may need to be imposed on Israel “from the outside.” The Guardian: Legal advisers for U.K.’s Foreign Office cannot conclude that Israel’s bombardment of Gaza is compliant with international law. Women and children face ‘hell’ in Gaza, as survivors recount torture, humiliation, and executions at hands of Israeli soldiers Israeli forces killed at least 165 Palestinians and wounded 280 more in the past 24 hours in Gaza, the Ministry of Health in the small bombarded enclave reported on Saturday, bringing the official death toll since October 7 in Gaza to 24,927, with at least 62,388 more wounded. Advertisement Help Mondoweiss reach 100,000 subscribers on YouTube! This number does not include people who are missing and believed to be trapped under rubble, unidentified bodies, people who were buried by their families without going to a hospital, nor people who have died due to illness, cold, or hunger as a result of Israel’s merciless blockade of Gaza. The real death toll is believed by some groups to surpass 32,000. Deadly Israeli strikes have pummelled the areas of Khan Younis, al-Qarara, Bani Suheila, al-Zana, Abasan, Batn Al-Sameen, Nuseirat refugee camp, al-Shati refugee camp, and Jabalia since Friday, WAFA news agency reported. After eight days of complete blackout, Paltel meanwhile reported a partial return of telecom services in Gaza. Palestinian armed factions meanwhile said they were confronting ground Israeli forces in various neighborhoods of Gaza City, as well as in al-Bureij, al-Maghazi, Jabalia, and Khan Younis. Israel’s relentless war on Gaza is killing two mothers every hour, U.N. Women estimated in a new report looking into the gendered impact of the catastrophic situation in the Palestinian enclave since October 7. “We have seen evidence once more that women and children are the first victims of conflict and that our duty to seek peace is a duty to them. Without change, these last 100 days will be mere prelude to the next 100,” UN Women executive director Sima Bahous said on Friday. “These are people, not numbers, and we are failing them. That failure, and the generational trauma inflicted on the Palestinian people over these 100 days and counting, will haunt us all for generations to come.” UNICEF, which has estimated that some 20,000 babies have been born in Gaza since October 7, said these Palestinian children were being “born into hell.” “Becoming a mother should be a time for celebration. In Gaza, it’s another child delivered into hell,” UNICEF communication specialist Tess Ingram said on Friday. “Humanity cannot allow this warped version of normal to persist any longer. Mothers and newborns need a humanitarian ceasefire.” Meanwhile, more accounts have emerged of Israeli soldiers torturing and executing Palestinians in Gaza, with eyewitnesses telling Al Jazeera that Israeli forces publicly hanged some Palestinians in Beit Lahia’s Indonesian Hospital, and forced survivors to sleep in the same room as dead bodies. Palestinian men who were detained incommunicado by Israel for up to 55 days meanwhile spoke of being beaten, having dogs urinate on them, and being subjected to psychological terror. “They threatened to shoot us. After two hours of being half-naked in such conditions, they moved us a few meters and told us to get ready for our execution,” Muhammad Abu Samra, one former prisoner, told Al Jazeera. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) meanwhile denounced in its latest update the “dramatic increase” in Israel’s denials of access to humanitarian aid deliveries. The organization said that 69 percent of aid deliveries to northern Gaza were rejected by the Israeli military in the first two weeks of January, compared to a 14 percent denial rate between October and December. The rejection rate rose 95 percent for the distribution of fuel and medicine to water reservoirs, water wells, and health facilities, leading to “increased health and environmental hazards while debilitating the functionality of the six partially functioning hospitals” in northern Gaza. Palestinian-American teenager shot in the head and killed in the West Bank A Palestinian-American teenager was shot in the head and killed by Israelis on Friday near the central occupied West Bank village of Mazraa al-Sharqiya. WAFA news agency identified him as 17-year-old Palestinian-American Tawfiq Hafiz Ajjaq, who had recently moved back to Palestine. Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Ajjaq was killed by an Israeli settler and an off-duty police officer, who claimed the boy had been throwing stones. The U.S. State Department told journalists it was in contact with Israeli authorities over the case and “working to understand the circumstances of the incident.” Washington has historically done little to ensure justice when Israelis kill Palestinians with U.S. citizenship, such as Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, and 80-year-old Omar Assad. Israeli forces detained at least 22 Palestinians across the West Bank overnight, Al Jazeera reported, including a former prisoner in the Jenin area. WAFA news agency reported a number of raids across the occupied West Bank, including in Nablus, Kafr Nim’a, Tuqu’, and Hebron. Confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinian residents were meanwhile reported in Nablus, Tubas, Balata refugee camp, and Jenin. Elsewhere, Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians in the flashpoint area of Masafer Yatta and near Rammon. In occupied East Jerusalem Israeli police once again restricted worshippers’ access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque for Friday prayers, and Israeli authorities forced a Palestinian resident of Silwan to demolish his own home for not having a near-impossible to obtain a construction permit. The Israeli political circus continues Barely a day after Benjamin Netanyahu publicly reiterated that there would be no Palestinian state under his watch, the Israeli premier had a phone call with U.S. President Joe Biden for the first time in nearly a month. Biden later told journalists that Netanyahu had told him he was open to a two-state solution, sparking bafflement from reporters. “There are a number of types of two-state solutions,” Biden told the journalists. “There’s a number of countries that are members of the UN that don’t have their own militaries…. And so I think there’s ways in which this could work.” “Bibi just said he’s opposed to any two-state solution,” CBS journalist Weijia Jiang told Biden, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “No, he didn’t say that,” Biden responded. While the Israeli prime minister appears to be telling his staunch American ally one thing and his Israeli audience another, Israeli president Isaac Herzog told the audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday that no Israeli “in his right mind is willing now to think about what will be the solution of the peace agreement.” Tensions meanwhile are continuing to rise within Netanyahu’s wartime coalition government, with some observers saying it is “close to collapse.” Among the latest indications of a fracture between Netanyahu and his fellow war cabinet members, former army chiefs of staff Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli prime minister unilaterally changed Israel’s conditions for a hostage release deal to a tougher series of demands, Israeli media reported. While Gantz and Eisenkot have publicly stated that a deal is the only way to obtain the safe return of some 132 Israelis still held in Gaza, Netanyahu and his far-right allies are obstinately arguing that the use of force is the only way forward, despite its failure so far to lead to the release of hostages alive. The families of Israeli hostages camped outside of Netanyahu’s home in Cesarea on Friday to call for him to agree to a deal that could bring their loved ones home. Tensions ratchet up across the Middle East Tensions in the region are at a tipping point, as several strikes by Israel and its allies threaten to escalate violence irrevocably. Israeli forces launched an airstrike in the Syrian capital Damascus on Friday, killing five people, including at least four military advisers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian military organization confirmed, calling it a “terrorist attack.” Meanwhile, an Israeli airstrike on a car killed two people in southern Lebanon. Lebanese media could not immediately confirm whether the two were, as Israel claims, members of Hamas. On the Yemeni front, U.S. forces struck Ansar Allah targets for the sixth time this month, in a bid to halt the Yemeni rebel group, also known as the Houthis, from thwarting the passage of commercial ships in the Red Sea in support of Palestine. Biden has himself acknowledged that American and British airstrikes were unlikely to deter Ansar Allah, but has nonetheless vowed to continue on. In Europe, the E.U.’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell accused Israel on Friday of bearing responsibility for the creation and funding of the Hamas movement – claims that have been extensively acknowledged by Israeli officials themselves. “Hamas was financed by the Israeli government in an attempt to weaken the Palestinian Authority,” Borrell told an audience at the University of Valladolid in Spain, before adding that “The only solution is to create two states that share the land for which they have been dying for 100 years,” even if this two-state solution needs to be “imposed from the outside.” BEFORE YOU GO – At Mondoweiss, we understand the power of telling Palestinian stories. For 17 years, we have pushed back when the mainstream media published lies or echoed politicians’ hateful rhetoric. Now, Palestinian voices are more important than ever. Our traffic has increased ten times since October 7, and we need your help to cover our increased expenses. Support our journalists with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-106-israel-bombs-gaza-lebanon-and-syria-u-s-bombs-yemen/