• The Black Nobility Jesuit Order: Founders of Fascism, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Vatican & Zionism

    This article acts as an introductory discussion for you to familiarize yourself with humanity's consistent true enemy; the Jesuits. The Jesuits are an ancient pagan cult that infiltrated the Roman Catholic church long ago, they are the originators of fascism as seen through their fasces symbology. The Jesuits are often referred to as "Black Nobility" or "Papal Bloodlines." The best and quickest direct evidence of the order's agenda is that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati was a Jesuit as he openly attended a Jesuit school, easily proving that the Jesuits started the Illuminati as one of their control methods (...)

    Full article: https://www.humorousmathematics.com/post/the-black-nobility-jesuit-order-founders-of-fascism-freemasonry-illuminati-the-vatican-and-zionism
    The Black Nobility Jesuit Order: Founders of Fascism, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Vatican & Zionism This article acts as an introductory discussion for you to familiarize yourself with humanity's consistent true enemy; the Jesuits. The Jesuits are an ancient pagan cult that infiltrated the Roman Catholic church long ago, they are the originators of fascism as seen through their fasces symbology. The Jesuits are often referred to as "Black Nobility" or "Papal Bloodlines." The best and quickest direct evidence of the order's agenda is that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati was a Jesuit as he openly attended a Jesuit school, easily proving that the Jesuits started the Illuminati as one of their control methods (...) Full article: https://www.humorousmathematics.com/post/the-black-nobility-jesuit-order-founders-of-fascism-freemasonry-illuminati-the-vatican-and-zionism
    WWW.HUMOROUSMATHEMATICS.COM
    The Black Nobility Jesuit Order: Founders of Fascism, Freemasonry, Illuminati, The Vatican & Zionism
    This article acts as an introductory discussion for you to familiarize yourself with humanity's consistent true enemy; the Jesuits. The Jesuits are an ancient pagan cult that infiltrated the Roman Catholic church long ago, they are the originators of fascism as seen through their fasces symbology. The Jesuits are often referred to as "Black Nobility" or "Papal Bloodlines." The best and quickest direct evidence of the order's agenda is that Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati was a Jes
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 430 Ansichten
  • Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives
    Connor Echols12 March, 2024
    GettyImages-164224706.jpg
    This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft

    Close watchers of Israel’s war in Gaza have faced a question in recent months: If the US is rushing weapons to Israel, then why hasn’t the public heard of any arms sales besides two relatively small transfers late last year?

    The Washington Post delivered an answer last week. Reporter John Hudson revealed that the Biden administration has approved over 100 smaller weapons packages for Israel since 7 October that fell under the $25 million threshold for formally notifying Congress - and thus the public - about the transfers.

    In total, these mini-sales could add up to more than $1 billion worth of US military aid.

    The decision to deliver US aid in smaller packages is far from unusual. The US government has done so in the past for practical and nefarious purposes alike; only about 2% of weapons transfers occur above the threshold to notify Congress, according to former officials.

    "When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there's a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law"

    But what is abnormal is the fact that many of those weapons were likely pre-positioned on Israeli territory before the war. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access.

    When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there’s a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law.

    “It’s clear that it’s been a major source of arms for Israel,” said Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of US support for Israel’s war. Unfortunately, Paul added, “it’s an opaque process, so it’s hard to say exactly what weapons they’re getting” from the stockpile.

    RELATED

    Analysis

    Giorgio Cafiero

    This cache of arms is just a small piece of the puzzle. Taken as a whole, US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country, according to experts and former senior US officials.

    These advantages include modified human rights vetting, special access to US weapons, and a veto on American arms sales to Israel’s neighbours. Up to this point, the State Department hasn’t carried out a formal assessment of Israel’s compliance with the law in its Gaza war.

    Experts claim these arms transfer cutouts have continued or, in some areas, been expanded since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, which has left over 31,000 Palestinians dead and much of the strip’s population in famine or famine-like conditions. Even last month, as war crime accusations mounted, the US reportedly gave Israel at least 1,000 precision-guided munitions and artillery shells.

    Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. [Getty]
    “The bottom line is that either you have human rights standards and legal standards or you don't,” Paul said. When US officials fail to hold Israel accountable for alleged abuses, “it not only creates an exception for Israel, but it also undermines your diplomacy with other countries,” he told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab.

    "I have serious concerns that the continued transfer of weapons to Israel is facilitating indiscriminate bombing that may violate international humanitarian law," Rep. Joaquin Castro told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab in a statement. "Congress needs to push the Biden administration to hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for any use of U.S. security assistance that violates international law."

    State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab that all transfers to Israel since 7 October have followed US law and policy, including notifications to Congress.

    “We have followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed and regularly brief members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement,” Miller said in a statement, adding that claims that the US has cut up weapons packages in order to avoid public scrutiny are “unequivocally false”.

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    "US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country"

    Exceptions make the rules

    When a Middle Eastern country asks the US for weapons, American officials’ minds go straight to Israel. Would Tel Aviv approve of the transfer? Could new fighter jets give Egypt an edge over Israel on the battlefield if their peace deal fell apart? Would Israeli officials come around if we offer them better weapons to sweeten the pot?

    This line of reasoning doesn’t have anything to do with the personal opinions of US officials. In fact, US law explicitly states that the US must give Israel a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbours to counter a threat from “any individual state or possible coalition of states or [...] non-state actors”.

    US partners are starkly aware of - and unhappy about - this reality, according to a former senior US military official in Cairo who requested anonymity to speak freely about his experience.

    Egyptian officials would sometimes request high-tech weapons just to “watch us squirm and come up with some way to say ‘no’ without saying the Israelis won't approve it,” the former official recalled.

    RELATED

    Analysis

    Hanna Davis

    “This is another place where it’s very explicit that Israel has a special status that no other country enjoys,” said John Ramming-Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

    This qualitative advantage is enforced by the quantitative side. Since World War II, Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US military aid. Washington’s funding for the Israeli military, which now totals $3.8 billion per year, makes up about 16% of its total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. Israel, which can spend part of its US aid on Israeli weapons, gets this cash in an interest-bearing account in New York, making it one of only two states that get a multimillion-dollar tip on top of baseline US support.

    When it comes to human rights, Israel also gets special protections. Take the Leahy law, a statute that prevents specific units of foreign militaries from receiving US aid if American officials have evidence they’ve committed “gross violations of human rights”.

    For most countries, Leahy vetting happens before aid is disbursed. Israel gets the equipment first, and the ensuing vetting process looks different than for other countries. Lower-level State Department officials have found multiple cases in which Israeli units should lose access to American weapons under US law, but those cases are consistently blocked by higher-ups in government who usually don’t weigh in on such cases for other countries, according to Paul.

    The result is that, unlike Egypt and other US partners in the Middle East, no Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under the Leahy law despite numerous credible allegations of human rights abuses, a fact that the statute’s namesake has loudly railed against.

    Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since October in Israel's war on Gaza. [Getty]
    The State Department has previously justified this disparity by pointing to Israel’s judicial system, which US officials believe is capable of handling human rights violations internally.

    In recent weeks, congressional attention has focused on whether Israel is violating a US law that prevents countries from receiving American weapons if they block US humanitarian aid in whole or in part. While the statute has rarely been enforced, the Biden administration promised to hold states accountable to the law in a recent memorandum.

    At this point, many experts and lawmakers believe Israel is in clear violation of this law given how little aid now enters Gaza. Yet the White House has still not offered a reason - or a formal waiver - to justify its failure to enforce its own commitment.

    "Given the evidence that Israel is intentionally blocking the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Biden administration has an obligation to enforce Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and move towards limitations on further offensive aid to Israel as long as the aid blockade continues," Rep. Castro told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab.

    "US law explicitly states that America must give Israel a 'qualitative military edge' over its neighbours"

    'As supportive as possible'

    When the White House moved to expedite weapons transfers to Israel after 7 October, it faced an unusual problem. The president already had more than enough authority to make this happen, but officials wanted to signal that they were being “as supportive as possible”.

    The solution was to further loosen laws around US arms transfers, according to Paul, who still worked in government at the time.

    “It's not that those were things that we'd been previously thinking about,” Paul said. “The previous position within government had been [that] Israel already has more than you could possibly want in terms of authorities and funding.”

    RELATED

    In-depth

    Jessica Buxbaum

    Now, the Senate’s supplemental spending package for Israel has provisions that would dramatically expand the secretive US stockpile on Israeli soil while loosening public reporting requirements about transfers from it. A bill with similar changes passed the House as well, signalling broad support for the proposal in Congress.

    Alongside already existing loopholes, these new restrictions weaken America’s case that it is committed to protecting human rights on the world stage, according to Ramming-Chappell.

    “The exceptional status that Israel enjoys in US arms transfer policy and law, when taken in conjunction with the devastating effects of Israel’s current campaign in Gaza, really undermines US leadership and claims to moral authority in the international sphere,” he said.

    Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter.

    Follow him on Twitter: @connor_echols

    https://www.newarab.com/analysis/bombs-guns-treasure-what-israel-wants-us-gives


    https://telegra.ph/Bombs-guns-treasure-What-Israel-wants-the-US-gives-03-20
    Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives Connor Echols12 March, 2024 GettyImages-164224706.jpg This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft Close watchers of Israel’s war in Gaza have faced a question in recent months: If the US is rushing weapons to Israel, then why hasn’t the public heard of any arms sales besides two relatively small transfers late last year? The Washington Post delivered an answer last week. Reporter John Hudson revealed that the Biden administration has approved over 100 smaller weapons packages for Israel since 7 October that fell under the $25 million threshold for formally notifying Congress - and thus the public - about the transfers. In total, these mini-sales could add up to more than $1 billion worth of US military aid. The decision to deliver US aid in smaller packages is far from unusual. The US government has done so in the past for practical and nefarious purposes alike; only about 2% of weapons transfers occur above the threshold to notify Congress, according to former officials. "When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there's a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law" But what is abnormal is the fact that many of those weapons were likely pre-positioned on Israeli territory before the war. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there’s a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law. “It’s clear that it’s been a major source of arms for Israel,” said Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of US support for Israel’s war. Unfortunately, Paul added, “it’s an opaque process, so it’s hard to say exactly what weapons they’re getting” from the stockpile. RELATED Analysis Giorgio Cafiero This cache of arms is just a small piece of the puzzle. Taken as a whole, US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country, according to experts and former senior US officials. These advantages include modified human rights vetting, special access to US weapons, and a veto on American arms sales to Israel’s neighbours. Up to this point, the State Department hasn’t carried out a formal assessment of Israel’s compliance with the law in its Gaza war. Experts claim these arms transfer cutouts have continued or, in some areas, been expanded since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, which has left over 31,000 Palestinians dead and much of the strip’s population in famine or famine-like conditions. Even last month, as war crime accusations mounted, the US reportedly gave Israel at least 1,000 precision-guided munitions and artillery shells. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. [Getty] “The bottom line is that either you have human rights standards and legal standards or you don't,” Paul said. When US officials fail to hold Israel accountable for alleged abuses, “it not only creates an exception for Israel, but it also undermines your diplomacy with other countries,” he told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab. "I have serious concerns that the continued transfer of weapons to Israel is facilitating indiscriminate bombing that may violate international humanitarian law," Rep. Joaquin Castro told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab in a statement. "Congress needs to push the Biden administration to hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for any use of U.S. security assistance that violates international law." State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab that all transfers to Israel since 7 October have followed US law and policy, including notifications to Congress. “We have followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed and regularly brief members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement,” Miller said in a statement, adding that claims that the US has cut up weapons packages in order to avoid public scrutiny are “unequivocally false”. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. "US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country" Exceptions make the rules When a Middle Eastern country asks the US for weapons, American officials’ minds go straight to Israel. Would Tel Aviv approve of the transfer? Could new fighter jets give Egypt an edge over Israel on the battlefield if their peace deal fell apart? Would Israeli officials come around if we offer them better weapons to sweeten the pot? This line of reasoning doesn’t have anything to do with the personal opinions of US officials. In fact, US law explicitly states that the US must give Israel a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbours to counter a threat from “any individual state or possible coalition of states or [...] non-state actors”. US partners are starkly aware of - and unhappy about - this reality, according to a former senior US military official in Cairo who requested anonymity to speak freely about his experience. Egyptian officials would sometimes request high-tech weapons just to “watch us squirm and come up with some way to say ‘no’ without saying the Israelis won't approve it,” the former official recalled. RELATED Analysis Hanna Davis “This is another place where it’s very explicit that Israel has a special status that no other country enjoys,” said John Ramming-Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. This qualitative advantage is enforced by the quantitative side. Since World War II, Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US military aid. Washington’s funding for the Israeli military, which now totals $3.8 billion per year, makes up about 16% of its total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. Israel, which can spend part of its US aid on Israeli weapons, gets this cash in an interest-bearing account in New York, making it one of only two states that get a multimillion-dollar tip on top of baseline US support. When it comes to human rights, Israel also gets special protections. Take the Leahy law, a statute that prevents specific units of foreign militaries from receiving US aid if American officials have evidence they’ve committed “gross violations of human rights”. For most countries, Leahy vetting happens before aid is disbursed. Israel gets the equipment first, and the ensuing vetting process looks different than for other countries. Lower-level State Department officials have found multiple cases in which Israeli units should lose access to American weapons under US law, but those cases are consistently blocked by higher-ups in government who usually don’t weigh in on such cases for other countries, according to Paul. The result is that, unlike Egypt and other US partners in the Middle East, no Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under the Leahy law despite numerous credible allegations of human rights abuses, a fact that the statute’s namesake has loudly railed against. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since October in Israel's war on Gaza. [Getty] The State Department has previously justified this disparity by pointing to Israel’s judicial system, which US officials believe is capable of handling human rights violations internally. In recent weeks, congressional attention has focused on whether Israel is violating a US law that prevents countries from receiving American weapons if they block US humanitarian aid in whole or in part. While the statute has rarely been enforced, the Biden administration promised to hold states accountable to the law in a recent memorandum. At this point, many experts and lawmakers believe Israel is in clear violation of this law given how little aid now enters Gaza. Yet the White House has still not offered a reason - or a formal waiver - to justify its failure to enforce its own commitment. "Given the evidence that Israel is intentionally blocking the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Biden administration has an obligation to enforce Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and move towards limitations on further offensive aid to Israel as long as the aid blockade continues," Rep. Castro told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab. "US law explicitly states that America must give Israel a 'qualitative military edge' over its neighbours" 'As supportive as possible' When the White House moved to expedite weapons transfers to Israel after 7 October, it faced an unusual problem. The president already had more than enough authority to make this happen, but officials wanted to signal that they were being “as supportive as possible”. The solution was to further loosen laws around US arms transfers, according to Paul, who still worked in government at the time. “It's not that those were things that we'd been previously thinking about,” Paul said. “The previous position within government had been [that] Israel already has more than you could possibly want in terms of authorities and funding.” RELATED In-depth Jessica Buxbaum Now, the Senate’s supplemental spending package for Israel has provisions that would dramatically expand the secretive US stockpile on Israeli soil while loosening public reporting requirements about transfers from it. A bill with similar changes passed the House as well, signalling broad support for the proposal in Congress. Alongside already existing loopholes, these new restrictions weaken America’s case that it is committed to protecting human rights on the world stage, according to Ramming-Chappell. “The exceptional status that Israel enjoys in US arms transfer policy and law, when taken in conjunction with the devastating effects of Israel’s current campaign in Gaza, really undermines US leadership and claims to moral authority in the international sphere,” he said. Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter. Follow him on Twitter: @connor_echols https://www.newarab.com/analysis/bombs-guns-treasure-what-israel-wants-us-gives https://telegra.ph/Bombs-guns-treasure-What-Israel-wants-the-US-gives-03-20
    WWW.NEWARAB.COM
    Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives
    In-depth: Israel's exceptional status in US arms policy and law ensures that unending military aid is shielded from scrutiny over human rights abuses.
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 2254 Ansichten
  • Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives
    Connor Echols12 March, 2024
    GettyImages-164224706.jpg
    This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft

    Close watchers of Israel’s war in Gaza have faced a question in recent months: If the US is rushing weapons to Israel, then why hasn’t the public heard of any arms sales besides two relatively small transfers late last year?

    The Washington Post delivered an answer last week. Reporter John Hudson revealed that the Biden administration has approved over 100 smaller weapons packages for Israel since 7 October that fell under the $25 million threshold for formally notifying Congress - and thus the public - about the transfers.

    In total, these mini-sales could add up to more than $1 billion worth of US military aid.

    The decision to deliver US aid in smaller packages is far from unusual. The US government has done so in the past for practical and nefarious purposes alike; only about 2% of weapons transfers occur above the threshold to notify Congress, according to former officials.

    "When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there's a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law"

    But what is abnormal is the fact that many of those weapons were likely pre-positioned on Israeli territory before the war. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access.

    When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there’s a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law.

    “It’s clear that it’s been a major source of arms for Israel,” said Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of US support for Israel’s war. Unfortunately, Paul added, “it’s an opaque process, so it’s hard to say exactly what weapons they’re getting” from the stockpile.

    RELATED

    Analysis

    Giorgio Cafiero

    This cache of arms is just a small piece of the puzzle. Taken as a whole, US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country, according to experts and former senior US officials.

    These advantages include modified human rights vetting, special access to US weapons, and a veto on American arms sales to Israel’s neighbours. Up to this point, the State Department hasn’t carried out a formal assessment of Israel’s compliance with the law in its Gaza war.

    Experts claim these arms transfer cutouts have continued or, in some areas, been expanded since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, which has left over 31,000 Palestinians dead and much of the strip’s population in famine or famine-like conditions. Even last month, as war crime accusations mounted, the US reportedly gave Israel at least 1,000 precision-guided munitions and artillery shells.

    Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. [Getty]
    “The bottom line is that either you have human rights standards and legal standards or you don't,” Paul said. When US officials fail to hold Israel accountable for alleged abuses, “it not only creates an exception for Israel, but it also undermines your diplomacy with other countries,” he told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab.

    "I have serious concerns that the continued transfer of weapons to Israel is facilitating indiscriminate bombing that may violate international humanitarian law," Rep. Joaquin Castro told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab in a statement. "Congress needs to push the Biden administration to hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for any use of U.S. security assistance that violates international law."

    State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab that all transfers to Israel since 7 October have followed US law and policy, including notifications to Congress.

    “We have followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed and regularly brief members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement,” Miller said in a statement, adding that claims that the US has cut up weapons packages in order to avoid public scrutiny are “unequivocally false”.

    The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    "US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country"

    Exceptions make the rules

    When a Middle Eastern country asks the US for weapons, American officials’ minds go straight to Israel. Would Tel Aviv approve of the transfer? Could new fighter jets give Egypt an edge over Israel on the battlefield if their peace deal fell apart? Would Israeli officials come around if we offer them better weapons to sweeten the pot?

    This line of reasoning doesn’t have anything to do with the personal opinions of US officials. In fact, US law explicitly states that the US must give Israel a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbours to counter a threat from “any individual state or possible coalition of states or [...] non-state actors”.

    US partners are starkly aware of - and unhappy about - this reality, according to a former senior US military official in Cairo who requested anonymity to speak freely about his experience.

    Egyptian officials would sometimes request high-tech weapons just to “watch us squirm and come up with some way to say ‘no’ without saying the Israelis won't approve it,” the former official recalled.

    RELATED

    Analysis

    Hanna Davis

    “This is another place where it’s very explicit that Israel has a special status that no other country enjoys,” said John Ramming-Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict.

    This qualitative advantage is enforced by the quantitative side. Since World War II, Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US military aid. Washington’s funding for the Israeli military, which now totals $3.8 billion per year, makes up about 16% of its total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. Israel, which can spend part of its US aid on Israeli weapons, gets this cash in an interest-bearing account in New York, making it one of only two states that get a multimillion-dollar tip on top of baseline US support.

    When it comes to human rights, Israel also gets special protections. Take the Leahy law, a statute that prevents specific units of foreign militaries from receiving US aid if American officials have evidence they’ve committed “gross violations of human rights”.

    For most countries, Leahy vetting happens before aid is disbursed. Israel gets the equipment first, and the ensuing vetting process looks different than for other countries. Lower-level State Department officials have found multiple cases in which Israeli units should lose access to American weapons under US law, but those cases are consistently blocked by higher-ups in government who usually don’t weigh in on such cases for other countries, according to Paul.

    The result is that, unlike Egypt and other US partners in the Middle East, no Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under the Leahy law despite numerous credible allegations of human rights abuses, a fact that the statute’s namesake has loudly railed against.

    Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since October in Israel's war on Gaza. [Getty]
    The State Department has previously justified this disparity by pointing to Israel’s judicial system, which US officials believe is capable of handling human rights violations internally.

    In recent weeks, congressional attention has focused on whether Israel is violating a US law that prevents countries from receiving American weapons if they block US humanitarian aid in whole or in part. While the statute has rarely been enforced, the Biden administration promised to hold states accountable to the law in a recent memorandum.

    At this point, many experts and lawmakers believe Israel is in clear violation of this law given how little aid now enters Gaza. Yet the White House has still not offered a reason - or a formal waiver - to justify its failure to enforce its own commitment.

    "Given the evidence that Israel is intentionally blocking the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Biden administration has an obligation to enforce Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and move towards limitations on further offensive aid to Israel as long as the aid blockade continues," Rep. Castro told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab.

    "US law explicitly states that America must give Israel a 'qualitative military edge' over its neighbours"

    'As supportive as possible'

    When the White House moved to expedite weapons transfers to Israel after 7 October, it faced an unusual problem. The president already had more than enough authority to make this happen, but officials wanted to signal that they were being “as supportive as possible”.

    The solution was to further loosen laws around US arms transfers, according to Paul, who still worked in government at the time.

    “It's not that those were things that we'd been previously thinking about,” Paul said. “The previous position within government had been [that] Israel already has more than you could possibly want in terms of authorities and funding.”

    RELATED

    In-depth

    Jessica Buxbaum

    Now, the Senate’s supplemental spending package for Israel has provisions that would dramatically expand the secretive US stockpile on Israeli soil while loosening public reporting requirements about transfers from it. A bill with similar changes passed the House as well, signalling broad support for the proposal in Congress.

    Alongside already existing loopholes, these new restrictions weaken America’s case that it is committed to protecting human rights on the world stage, according to Ramming-Chappell.

    “The exceptional status that Israel enjoys in US arms transfer policy and law, when taken in conjunction with the devastating effects of Israel’s current campaign in Gaza, really undermines US leadership and claims to moral authority in the international sphere,” he said.

    Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter.

    Follow him on Twitter: @connor_echols

    https://www.newarab.com/analysis/bombs-guns-treasure-what-israel-wants-us-gives
    Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives Connor Echols12 March, 2024 GettyImages-164224706.jpg This article was co-published with Responsible Statecraft Close watchers of Israel’s war in Gaza have faced a question in recent months: If the US is rushing weapons to Israel, then why hasn’t the public heard of any arms sales besides two relatively small transfers late last year? The Washington Post delivered an answer last week. Reporter John Hudson revealed that the Biden administration has approved over 100 smaller weapons packages for Israel since 7 October that fell under the $25 million threshold for formally notifying Congress - and thus the public - about the transfers. In total, these mini-sales could add up to more than $1 billion worth of US military aid. The decision to deliver US aid in smaller packages is far from unusual. The US government has done so in the past for practical and nefarious purposes alike; only about 2% of weapons transfers occur above the threshold to notify Congress, according to former officials. "When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there's a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law" But what is abnormal is the fact that many of those weapons were likely pre-positioned on Israeli territory before the war. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. When a US-made bomb slams into Gaza, there’s a real chance that it started the day in an American facility, managed by American soldiers and governed by American law. “It’s clear that it’s been a major source of arms for Israel,” said Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in protest of US support for Israel’s war. Unfortunately, Paul added, “it’s an opaque process, so it’s hard to say exactly what weapons they’re getting” from the stockpile. RELATED Analysis Giorgio Cafiero This cache of arms is just a small piece of the puzzle. Taken as a whole, US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country, according to experts and former senior US officials. These advantages include modified human rights vetting, special access to US weapons, and a veto on American arms sales to Israel’s neighbours. Up to this point, the State Department hasn’t carried out a formal assessment of Israel’s compliance with the law in its Gaza war. Experts claim these arms transfer cutouts have continued or, in some areas, been expanded since Israel launched its campaign in Gaza, which has left over 31,000 Palestinians dead and much of the strip’s population in famine or famine-like conditions. Even last month, as war crime accusations mounted, the US reportedly gave Israel at least 1,000 precision-guided munitions and artillery shells. Unlike other countries, Israel has a stockpile of American weapons on its soil to which it has privileged access. [Getty] “The bottom line is that either you have human rights standards and legal standards or you don't,” Paul said. When US officials fail to hold Israel accountable for alleged abuses, “it not only creates an exception for Israel, but it also undermines your diplomacy with other countries,” he told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab. "I have serious concerns that the continued transfer of weapons to Israel is facilitating indiscriminate bombing that may violate international humanitarian law," Rep. Joaquin Castro told Responsible Statecraft/ The New Arab in a statement. "Congress needs to push the Biden administration to hold Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for any use of U.S. security assistance that violates international law." State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab that all transfers to Israel since 7 October have followed US law and policy, including notifications to Congress. “We have followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed and regularly brief members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement,” Miller said in a statement, adding that claims that the US has cut up weapons packages in order to avoid public scrutiny are “unequivocally false”. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. "US efforts to shield Israel from human rights restrictions and guarantee its access to continued military aid go further than for any other country" Exceptions make the rules When a Middle Eastern country asks the US for weapons, American officials’ minds go straight to Israel. Would Tel Aviv approve of the transfer? Could new fighter jets give Egypt an edge over Israel on the battlefield if their peace deal fell apart? Would Israeli officials come around if we offer them better weapons to sweeten the pot? This line of reasoning doesn’t have anything to do with the personal opinions of US officials. In fact, US law explicitly states that the US must give Israel a “qualitative military edge” over its neighbours to counter a threat from “any individual state or possible coalition of states or [...] non-state actors”. US partners are starkly aware of - and unhappy about - this reality, according to a former senior US military official in Cairo who requested anonymity to speak freely about his experience. Egyptian officials would sometimes request high-tech weapons just to “watch us squirm and come up with some way to say ‘no’ without saying the Israelis won't approve it,” the former official recalled. RELATED Analysis Hanna Davis “This is another place where it’s very explicit that Israel has a special status that no other country enjoys,” said John Ramming-Chappell of the Center for Civilians in Conflict. This qualitative advantage is enforced by the quantitative side. Since World War II, Israel is far and away the largest recipient of US military aid. Washington’s funding for the Israeli military, which now totals $3.8 billion per year, makes up about 16% of its total budget, according to the Congressional Research Service. Israel, which can spend part of its US aid on Israeli weapons, gets this cash in an interest-bearing account in New York, making it one of only two states that get a multimillion-dollar tip on top of baseline US support. When it comes to human rights, Israel also gets special protections. Take the Leahy law, a statute that prevents specific units of foreign militaries from receiving US aid if American officials have evidence they’ve committed “gross violations of human rights”. For most countries, Leahy vetting happens before aid is disbursed. Israel gets the equipment first, and the ensuing vetting process looks different than for other countries. Lower-level State Department officials have found multiple cases in which Israeli units should lose access to American weapons under US law, but those cases are consistently blocked by higher-ups in government who usually don’t weigh in on such cases for other countries, according to Paul. The result is that, unlike Egypt and other US partners in the Middle East, no Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under the Leahy law despite numerous credible allegations of human rights abuses, a fact that the statute’s namesake has loudly railed against. Over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since October in Israel's war on Gaza. [Getty] The State Department has previously justified this disparity by pointing to Israel’s judicial system, which US officials believe is capable of handling human rights violations internally. In recent weeks, congressional attention has focused on whether Israel is violating a US law that prevents countries from receiving American weapons if they block US humanitarian aid in whole or in part. While the statute has rarely been enforced, the Biden administration promised to hold states accountable to the law in a recent memorandum. At this point, many experts and lawmakers believe Israel is in clear violation of this law given how little aid now enters Gaza. Yet the White House has still not offered a reason - or a formal waiver - to justify its failure to enforce its own commitment. "Given the evidence that Israel is intentionally blocking the passage of humanitarian aid to Gaza, the Biden administration has an obligation to enforce Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act and move towards limitations on further offensive aid to Israel as long as the aid blockade continues," Rep. Castro told Responsible Statecraft/The New Arab. "US law explicitly states that America must give Israel a 'qualitative military edge' over its neighbours" 'As supportive as possible' When the White House moved to expedite weapons transfers to Israel after 7 October, it faced an unusual problem. The president already had more than enough authority to make this happen, but officials wanted to signal that they were being “as supportive as possible”. The solution was to further loosen laws around US arms transfers, according to Paul, who still worked in government at the time. “It's not that those were things that we'd been previously thinking about,” Paul said. “The previous position within government had been [that] Israel already has more than you could possibly want in terms of authorities and funding.” RELATED In-depth Jessica Buxbaum Now, the Senate’s supplemental spending package for Israel has provisions that would dramatically expand the secretive US stockpile on Israeli soil while loosening public reporting requirements about transfers from it. A bill with similar changes passed the House as well, signalling broad support for the proposal in Congress. Alongside already existing loopholes, these new restrictions weaken America’s case that it is committed to protecting human rights on the world stage, according to Ramming-Chappell. “The exceptional status that Israel enjoys in US arms transfer policy and law, when taken in conjunction with the devastating effects of Israel’s current campaign in Gaza, really undermines US leadership and claims to moral authority in the international sphere,” he said. Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter. Follow him on Twitter: @connor_echols https://www.newarab.com/analysis/bombs-guns-treasure-what-israel-wants-us-gives
    WWW.NEWARAB.COM
    Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives
    In-depth: Israel's exceptional status in US arms policy and law ensures that unending military aid is shielded from scrutiny over human rights abuses.
    Like
    1
    1 Kommentare 0 Anteile 2291 Ansichten
  • AltSignals (ASI) outlook amid expert’s “huge” Bitcoin (BTC) prediction

    AltSignals (ASI) recently listed on crypto DEX platform Uniswap.
    Analysts have shared major predictions for Bitcoin (BTC) as price hovers near $51k.
    As Bitcoin bulls struggle to hold prices above $51k, a crypto analyst has shared a potential bearish flip that could see BTC price trade to $48k. Here’s the price outlook for AltSignals.

    BTC price to $48k? Analyst points to on-chain metric
    Bitcoin price rose to above $53k on February 20, hitting the highest level since December 2021. While the bellwether cryptocurrency’s market cap remains above the $1 trillion mark hit this month, prices have revisited the $50.6k level on multiple occasions.

    A crypto analyst has shared a Bitcoin price prediction suggesting BTC could dip to lows of $48k. On-chain and data analytics platform CryptoQuant shared the analyst’s view on X on Monday.

    Per the prediction, the 30-day moving average of Bitcoin’s short term Holder SORP metric shows it’s near the selling zone for short-term investors. The technical chart also shows BTC trading below the resistance, with a breakdown likely to push prices to the $48k area.

    On the other hand, crypto analyst Ali says Bitcoin could retest the $53k level and target $60.5k amid its megaphone pattern formed on the daily chart.

    What could this mean for the altcoin market, for AltSignals price? Largely, declines for Bitcoin have seen the broader market react lower.

    Likewise, a mega rally has often injected new upside momentum in altcoins, likely to be led by ETH as spot Ethereum ETF excitement builds up. A recent report showed 84% of crypto investors see Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high in 2024.

    AltSignals: Trading signals enhanced by AI
    AltSignals has consistently returned win rates averaging 64%. Traders have benefitted from thousands of signals across stocks, crypto and forex among other markets.

    With business on the upside since its debut in 2017, this trading signals platform is now getting ready for the next chapter of growth. It seeks to capitalize on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom by integrating a new AI stack dubbed ActualizeAI.

    The platform aims to increase its algorithm’s average win rate from 64% to over 80%.

    Elsewhere, the AltSignals roadmap includes the licensing of ActualizeAI and launch of Actualize Pass NFT marketplace. There are also plans to partner with other platforms to enhance adoption.

    The native token is ASI, which offers holders access to the AI ecosystem.

    AltSignals price prediction: Will ASI token explode 2024?
    The ASI token recently listed on the decentralized exchange (DEX) platform Uniswap, having successfully navigated its presale that closed in December last year.

    As the AI narrative strengthens and crypto markets expand, AltSignals (ASI) looks primed to be one of the top investing opportunities in the market. In the short term, a dip across the market may see ASI token struggle too.

    If the market rallies as anticipated amid Bitcoin’s halving and other tailwinds, the value of ASI could rise significantly. The potential for the AltSignals’ price to 100x is there given the likely demand for ActualizeAI.
    https://token.altsignals.io/
    AltSignals (ASI) outlook amid expert’s “huge” Bitcoin (BTC) prediction AltSignals (ASI) recently listed on crypto DEX platform Uniswap. Analysts have shared major predictions for Bitcoin (BTC) as price hovers near $51k. As Bitcoin bulls struggle to hold prices above $51k, a crypto analyst has shared a potential bearish flip that could see BTC price trade to $48k. Here’s the price outlook for AltSignals. BTC price to $48k? Analyst points to on-chain metric Bitcoin price rose to above $53k on February 20, hitting the highest level since December 2021. While the bellwether cryptocurrency’s market cap remains above the $1 trillion mark hit this month, prices have revisited the $50.6k level on multiple occasions. A crypto analyst has shared a Bitcoin price prediction suggesting BTC could dip to lows of $48k. On-chain and data analytics platform CryptoQuant shared the analyst’s view on X on Monday. Per the prediction, the 30-day moving average of Bitcoin’s short term Holder SORP metric shows it’s near the selling zone for short-term investors. The technical chart also shows BTC trading below the resistance, with a breakdown likely to push prices to the $48k area. On the other hand, crypto analyst Ali says Bitcoin could retest the $53k level and target $60.5k amid its megaphone pattern formed on the daily chart. What could this mean for the altcoin market, for AltSignals price? Largely, declines for Bitcoin have seen the broader market react lower. Likewise, a mega rally has often injected new upside momentum in altcoins, likely to be led by ETH as spot Ethereum ETF excitement builds up. A recent report showed 84% of crypto investors see Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high in 2024. AltSignals: Trading signals enhanced by AI AltSignals has consistently returned win rates averaging 64%. Traders have benefitted from thousands of signals across stocks, crypto and forex among other markets. With business on the upside since its debut in 2017, this trading signals platform is now getting ready for the next chapter of growth. It seeks to capitalize on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) boom by integrating a new AI stack dubbed ActualizeAI. The platform aims to increase its algorithm’s average win rate from 64% to over 80%. Elsewhere, the AltSignals roadmap includes the licensing of ActualizeAI and launch of Actualize Pass NFT marketplace. There are also plans to partner with other platforms to enhance adoption. The native token is ASI, which offers holders access to the AI ecosystem. AltSignals price prediction: Will ASI token explode 2024? The ASI token recently listed on the decentralized exchange (DEX) platform Uniswap, having successfully navigated its presale that closed in December last year. As the AI narrative strengthens and crypto markets expand, AltSignals (ASI) looks primed to be one of the top investing opportunities in the market. In the short term, a dip across the market may see ASI token struggle too. If the market rallies as anticipated amid Bitcoin’s halving and other tailwinds, the value of ASI could rise significantly. The potential for the AltSignals’ price to 100x is there given the likely demand for ActualizeAI. https://token.altsignals.io/
    TOKEN.ALTSIGNALS.IO
    AltSignals Presale - Invest In The AI Revolution With The ASI Token
    Become a part of AltSignals new AI development ActualizeAI, and join the fastest growing AI project in crypt
    Like
    2
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 7129 Ansichten
  • America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review
    UPDATE: On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi.

    I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?”

    It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel.

    Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better.

    And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens.

    Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.”

    And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying.

    So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish.

    One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel.

    Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not.

    There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress.

    Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage.

    For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.”

    As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it.

    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars.html
    America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review UPDATE: On the morning of September 21st Phil Giraldi was fired over the phone by The American Conservative, where he had been a regular contributor for fourteen years. He was told that “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars” was unacceptable. The TAC management and board appear to have forgotten that the magazine was launched with an article by founder Pat Buchanan entitled “Whose War?” which largely made the same claims that Giraldi made about the Jewish push for another war, in that case with Iraq. Buchanan was vilified and denounced as an anti-Semite by many of the same people who are now similarly attacking Giraldi. I spoke recently at a conference on America’s war party where afterwards an elderly gentleman came up to me and asked, “Why doesn’t anyone ever speak honestly about the six-hundred-pound gorilla in the room? Nobody has mentioned Israel in this conference and we all know it’s American Jews with all their money and power who are supporting every war in the Middle East for Netanyahu? Shouldn’t we start calling them out and not letting them get away with it?” It was a question combined with a comment that I have heard many times before and my answer is always the same: any organization that aspires to be heard on foreign policy knows that to touch the live wire of Israel and American Jews guarantees a quick trip to obscurity. Jewish groups and deep pocket individual donors not only control the politicians, they own and run the media and entertainment industries, meaning that no one will hear about or from the offending party ever again. They are particularly sensitive on the issue of so-called “dual loyalty,” particularly as the expression itself is a bit of a sham since it is pretty clear that some of them only have real loyalty to Israel. Most recently, some pundits, including myself, have been warning of an impending war with Iran. To be sure, the urging to strike Iran comes from many quarters, to include generals in the Administration who always think first in terms of settling problems through force, from a Saudi government obsessed with fear over Iranian hegemony, and, of course, from Israel itself. But what makes the war engine run is provided by American Jews who have taken upon themselves the onerous task of starting a war with a country that does not conceivably threaten the United States. They have been very successful at faking the Iranian threat, so much so that nearly all Republican and most Democratic congressmen as well as much of the media seem to be convinced that Iran needs to be dealt with firmly, most definitely by using the U.S. military, and the sooner the better. And while they are doing it, the issue that nearly all the Iran haters are Jewish has somehow fallen out of sight, as if it does not matter. But it should matter. A recent article in the New Yorker on stopping the impending war with Iran strangely suggests that the current generation “Iran hawks” might be a force of moderation regarding policy options given the lessons learned from Iraq. The article cites as hardliners on Iran David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens. Daniel Larison over at The American Conservative has a good review of the New Yorker piece entitled “Yes, Iran Hawks Want Conflict with Iran,” which identifies the four above cited hawks by name before describing them as “…a Who’s Who of consistently lousy foreign policy thinking. If they have been right about any major foreign policy issue in the last twenty years, it would be news to the entire world. Every single one of them hates the nuclear deal with Iran with a passion, and they have argued in favor of military action against Iran at one point or another. There is zero evidence that any of them would oppose attacking Iran.” And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum; John Podhoretz of Commentary magazine; Elliot Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations; Meyrav Wurmser of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Kimberly Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War; and Frederick Kagan, Danielle Pletka and David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute. And you can also throw into the hopper entire organizations like The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Hudson Institute. And yep, they’re all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives. And I might add that only one of the named individuals has ever served in any branch of the American military – David Wurmser was once in the Navy reserve. These individuals largely constitute a cabal of sanctimonious chairborne warriors who prefer to do the heavy thinking while they let others do the fighting and dying. So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American Jews. Indeed, I would opine that most of the fury from Congress re Iran comes from the same source, with AIPAC showering our Solons on the Potomac with “fact sheets” explaining how Iran is worthy of annihilation because it has pledged to “destroy Israel,” which is both a lie and an impossibility as Tehran does not have the resources to carry out such a task. The AIPAC lies are then picked up and replayed by an obliging media, where nearly every “expert” who speaks about the Middle East on television and radio or who is interviewed for newspaper stories is Jewish. One might also add that neocons as a group were founded by Jews and are largely Jewish, hence their universal attachment to the state of Israel. They first rose into prominence when they obtained a number of national security positions during the Reagan Administration and their ascendancy was completed when they staffed senior positions in the Pentagon and White House under George W. Bush. Recall for a moment Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Scooter Libby. Yes, all Jewish and all conduits for the false information that led to a war that has spread and effectively destroyed much of the Middle East. Except for Israel, of course. Philip Zelikow, also Jewish, in a moment of candor, admitted that the Iraq War, in his opinion, was fought for Israel. Add to the folly a Jewish U.S. Ambassador to Israel who identifies with the most right-wing Israeli settler elements, a White House appointed chief negotiator who is Jewish and a Jewish son-in-law who is also involved in formulating Middle East policy. Is anyone providing an alternative viewpoint to eternal and uncritical support for Benjamin Netanyahu and his kleptocratic regime of racist thugs? I think not. There are a couple of simple fixes for the dominant involvement of American Jews in foreign policy issues where they have a personal interest due to their ethnicity or family ties. First of all, don’t put them into national security positions involving the Middle East, where they will potentially be conflicted. Let them worry instead about North Korea, which does not have a Jewish minority and which was not involved in the holocaust. This type of solution was, in fact, somewhat of a policy regarding the U.S. Ambassador position in Israel. No Jew was appointed to avoid any conflict of interest prior to 1995, an understanding that was violated by Bill Clinton (wouldn’t you know it!) who named Martin Indyk to the post. Indyk was not even an American citizen at the time and had to be naturalized quickly prior to being approved by congress. Those American Jews who are strongly attached to Israel and somehow find themselves in senior policy making positions involving the Middle East and who actually possess any integrity on the issue should recuse themselves, just as any judge would do if he were presiding over a case in which he had a personal interest. Any American should be free to exercise first amendment rights to debate possible options regarding policy, up to and including embracing positions that damage the United States and benefit a foreign nation. But if he or she is in a position to actually create those policies, he or she should butt out and leave the policy generation to those who have no personal baggage. For those American Jews who lack any shred of integrity, the media should be required to label them at the bottom of the television screen whenever they pop up, e.g. Bill Kristol is “Jewish and an outspoken supporter of the state of Israel.” That would be kind-of-like a warning label on a bottle of rat poison – translating roughly as “ingest even the tiniest little dosage of the nonsense spewed by Bill Kristol at your own peril.” As none of the above is likely to happen, the only alternative is for American citizens who are tired of having their country’s national security interests hijacked by a group that is in thrall to a foreign government to become more assertive about what is happening. Shine a little light into the darkness and recognize who is being diddled and by whom. Call it like it is. And if someone’s feelings are hurt, too bad. We don’t need a war with Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to deliver. Seriously, we don’t need it. https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars.html
    WWW.UNZ.COM
    America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars
    Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 14348 Ansichten
  • CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness

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

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

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

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

    If this content is important to you, share it!

    Share

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

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

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

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Risch said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Share

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


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

    Upgrade to Paid Subscription

    Refer a friend

    Donate Subscriptions

    Give Direct to WCH

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

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness World Council for Health This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website. cdc masks ineffective covid feature The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. If this content is important to you, share it! Share However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1378462317109731334 That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. twitter.com/CDCgov/status/1256655451195715585 According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. If this content is important to you, share it with your network! Share This article was written by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. and originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense. If you find value in this Substack and have the means, please consider making a contribution to support the World Council for Health. Thank you. Upgrade to Paid Subscription Refer a friend Donate Subscriptions Give Direct to WCH https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks-ineffective https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks_16.html
    WORLDCOUNCILFORHEALTH.SUBSTACK.COM
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for Covid-19 but Recommended Them Anyway
    Officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 16786 Ansichten
  • CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Order Now

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

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

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

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

    Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

    Risch said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    According to the findings of the meta-analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    DETAILS âŹ‡ïž
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/

    Join âžĄïž @ShankaraChetty


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CDC'S own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by Paul D. Thacker. CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. cdc masks ineffective covid feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) own scientists conducted studies showing N95 respirators are no more effective at stopping viruses than surgical masks — yet the agency issued guidance contradicting those and other studies showing both types of masks are ineffective at stopping the spread of COVID-19, according to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker. The investigation, published this week in two parts on The Disinformation Chronicle, details how CDC leadership openly questioned the findings of CDC scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness. During the pandemic, mask advocates “shifted goalposts and demanded N95 respirators,” Thacker said, claiming they perform better than surgical masks at stopping the virus. However, Thacker said CDC scientists found no difference between N95 and surgical masks in the ability to stop the spread of respiratory viruses. The findings of the CDC studies are consistent with other peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks in preventing COVID-19, according to Thacker. “But the CDC responded by saying people can’t say that,” Thacker told The Defender. To shut down the controversy, the CDC, in its Jan. 23 post on preventing the transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings, warned researchers that to suggest facemasks and respirators are the same “is not scientifically correct,” Thacker wrote. CDC ignores own studies questioning N95, mask effectiveness According to Thacker, CDC guidance for controlling the spread of infections had not been updated since 2007. This prompted the CDC, in 2022, to select “a bunch of science experts,” and ask them “to update the agency’s scientific guidance to hospitals on how to control infections.” In November 2023, the experts produced an 80-page systematic review and meta-analysis, examining whether N95 respirators were more effective than surgical masks. The review found that while N95 respirators are better at filtering particles, the finding that they are more effective at stopping viruses “has been less conclusive.” The systematic review also examined the “effectiveness” of N95 respirators and surgical masks “under ‘real world’” conditions and found “no difference” between the two. The review also found numerous symptoms reported by N95 mask users, including: “difficulty breathing, headaches, and dizziness; skin barrier damage and itching; fatigue; and difficulty talking.” According to Thacker, the CDC is not pleased with these findings, suggesting in its recent update that its own scientists were wrong. “Although masks can provide some level of filtration, the level of filtration is not comparable to NIOSH Approved respirators,” the CDC said. The post also stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed the approach we take in healthcare settings to protect healthcare personnel, patients, and others from transmission of respiratory infections.” More evidence contradicting the CDC’s public position came at a June 2023 CDC meeting in Atlanta, when Erin Stone, MPH, a public health analyst in the agency’s Office of Guidelines and Evidence Review, presented the findings of a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of N95 respirators and surgical masks. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now According to Stone, the data “suggests no difference” in their effectiveness. Yet, in November 2023 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Energy and Commerce Committee, CDC Director Mandy Cohen sidestepped questions regarding mask effectiveness and refused to deny she would reinstate mask mandates for children. According to Thacker, in December 2023, just six days after Cohen’s testimony, The BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood journal published a study finding that “mask recommendations for children are not supported by scientific evidence.” “Recommending child masking does not meet the accepted practice of promulgating only medical interventions where benefits clearly outweigh harms,” the study authors noted. Thacker: CDC guidance based on politics, not science Thacker said the CDC contradicted its own findings on mask efficacy even in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. “Soon after the pandemic started, the CDC began promoting masks to stop the spread of COVID,” Thacker wrote. “And it did so despite CDC publishing a May 2020 policy study in their own journal, ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases,’ that did not find a ‘substantial effect’ for masks in stopping the transmission of respiratory viruses.” That same month, the CDC began publicly promoting N95 respirators as a more effective means of controlling the spread of COVID-19. However, on its webpage promoting the superiority of N95 respirators, the CDC admitted “there’s not a whole lot of evidence that N95 respirators do in fact work better than masks at stopping viruses,” Thacker wrote. “Laboratory studies have demonstrated that FFRs [filtering facepiece respirators] provide greater protection against aerosols compared with surgical masks … however, the results of clinical studies have been inconclusive,” the CDC wrote, citing a 2019 study in JAMA comparing N95 respirators to masks. “Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza,” the JAMA study noted. According to Thacker, the results of these studies confirm the widely accepted pre-COVID-19 scientific consensus on the ineffectiveness of masks of any kind in stopping the spread of viruses. Thacker cited statements the World Health Organization made in 2019 and the CDC’s guidance on virus control. In a 2020 appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Dr. Anthony Fauci said that while a mask might “block a droplet” and “make people feel a little better,” it does not provide “the perfect protection that people think it is.” According to Thacker, “For some reason, a ‘masks work’ political movement began to grow,” despite Fauci’s statements and the findings of these studies. “I’m not really sure what happened or what we do next,” Thacker wrote. “But something weird took place in America where liberal elites began messaging among themselves ‘masks work.’ They then grew this into a crusade.” The movement was effective in getting the CDC on board with issuing mask guidance, Thacker said. Four years after the onset of the pandemic, the CDC now openly cheerleads for masks, despite research the agency published showing that masks don’t really protect people from catching viruses, he said. “And this is why the experts advising the CDC are getting all this pushback: they didn’t tell the CDC what the CDC wanted to hear,” Thacker wrote. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., professor emeritus and senior research scientist in epidemiology (chronic diseases) at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Disinformation Chronicle the CDC “has succumbed to political influences.” Risch said: “It made policies for school closures in order to please the teachers’ union. Its charitable organization allows pharma to feed it hundreds of millions of dollars that would be illegal to go directly to the agency, and this gives pharma major influence on CDC policies.” According to Thacker, the CDC has continued to double down on guidance promoting mask efficacy. A Jan. 23 letter the agency sent to its own advisers appears to encourage them to add more mask guidance to the agency’s new guidelines for the spread of pathogens, based on the conclusion that N95 respirators are effective. “Too much science is forcing CDC to request a science do over,” Thacker wrote, referring to the CDC’s Jan. 23 post, which states that its new recommendations should not “be misread to suggest equivalency between facemasks and NIOSH Approved respirators, which is not scientifically correct nor the intent of the draft language.” Thacker said his investigation shows that “in their guidance to the CDC, experts do recommend masks as part of what they call ‘transmission-based guidance’ which the CDC defines as a second tier of infection control.” However, the CDC’s own guidance also finds that masks are effective only for “source control” — preventing an already infected person from infecting others. “But this isn’t what the CDC wants,” Thacker wrote. “They want the experts to write guidelines that recommend healthy people wear masks, even though research shows masks won’t really stop healthy people from getting sick.” “The CDC has caught the ‘masks work’ political wave and is now demanding that independent experts conform to their preferred mask dictates,” he added. In doing so, the CDC is rejecting science it doesn’t like, including several other non-CDC studies that have questioned mask effectiveness. A study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2022 found no difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19. These findings were mirrored in a January 2023 Cochrane meta-analysis on mask effectiveness. According to the Cochrane report, “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection.” A May 2023 study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety suggests N95 respirators may expose wearers to dangerous levels of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer. A September 2023 meta-analysis published in Clinical Research Study examined mask studies published since 2019 in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). According to the findings of the meta-analysis: “MMWR publications pertaining to masks drew positive conclusions about mask effectiveness >75% of the time despite only 30% testing masks and <15% having statistically significant results. No studies were randomized, yet over half drew causal conclusions. “The level of evidence generated was low and the conclusions were most often unsupported by the data. Our findings raise concern about the reliability of the journal for informing health policy.” Real-world examples also call into question narratives regarding mask efficacy. Sweden, for instance, did not mandate or recommend masks for the general public during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and only did so in certain situations in the later stages of the pandemic, according to The Conversation. Yet, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were among the lowest in Europe.” In 2020, Swedish state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell said, “We see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” adding there were “at least three heavyweight reports … which all state that the scientific evidence is weak.” A Swedish government commission noted low levels of excess mortality in 2020 and 2021 and said that, at most, masks should have been “recommended.” Soon after the report was released, a Feb. 25, 2022, Boston Herald op-ed stated that Sweden “got it right.” “I don’t understand what is driving the ‘masks work’ political movement,” Thacker told The Defender. “There were plenty of stories written pointing out that there isn’t much scientific evidence that masks stop respiratory virus spread.” “Maybe people were just scared and wanted to believe masks provide protection?” he said. Thacker also cited the historical precedent of the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1918, when the Red Cross campaigned for masks all across America. “California’s state board of health ran a study comparing towns that had mask mandates against those that did not. They found that there was no difference and published the study in the American Journal of Public Health in 1920,” Thacker said. “Maybe these mask campaigners need to read a little history,” he added. Thacker is now calling on whistleblowers inside the CDC to contact him “to discuss what is going on inside the agency.” “I’m talking to CDC people and hope to learn what is going on inside the agency. I plan to write more on this,” Thacker told The Defender. “CDC Director Mandy Cohen wants to restore trust in the agency, but that won’t happen if she keeps putting politics ahead of scientific evidence,” he said. DETAILS âŹ‡ïž https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-scientists-masks-ineffective-covid-agency-recommended/ Join âžĄïž @ShankaraChetty https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/cdcs-own-scientists-found-masks.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    CDC’s Own Scientists Found Masks Ineffective for COVID — But Agency Recommended Them Anyway
    According to an investigation by independent journalist Paul D. Thacker published this week in The Disinformation Chronicle, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention openly questioned the findings of its own scientists’ studies contradicting the agency’s public messaging about mask effectiveness
    Angry
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 13485 Ansichten
  • ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 129: Israel bombards Rafah, killing more than 60 in a night
    67 Palestinians, including babies and children, were killed Sunday night as Israel intensified bombing in Rafah, where over 1 million Palestinians are sheltering, in preparation for a ground invasion that experts warn would amount to genocide.

    Leila WarahFebruary 12, 2024
    A Palestinian man inspects the rubble of a building destroyed in an Israeli airstrike in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip
    Palestinians inpect the damage in the rubble of a building where two Israeli captives were reportedly held before being extracted in an operation by Israeli forcess in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip on February 12, 2024. Israeli bombardments on Rafah on the 12th killed more than 60 Palestinians. (Bashar Taleb/ APA Images)
    Casualties:

    28,340+ killed* and at least 67,984 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
    380+ 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.
    566 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.**
    *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on Telegram channel. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 35,000 when accounting for those presumed dead.

    ** This figure is released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.”

    Key Developments:

    Hamas’ military wing says Israeli bombing kills two Israeli captives and wounds of eight others, it is unclear where the attacks took place.
    CENTCOM: US carries out “self-defense strikes” in Yemen.
    UNICEF: Civilians in Rafah must be protected as they have nowhere to go.
    UN: At least 395 displaced people killed in UNRWA shelters since October 7
    100 Palestinian bodies recovered from Gaza City after Israeli troops withdrew, most killed by sniper bullets.
    Israel says two captives rescued from Rafah in southern Gaza, claims they are in good medical condition.
    In the last 24 hours, Israeli forces killed 164 people and injured 200 in Gaza, a ministry statement on Telegram said.
    At least 67 Palestinians killed in overnight Israeli airstrikes in Rafah, says the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
    Israeli forces kill Palestinian man in occupied West Bank
    In four months, 17 settlement plans for over 8,400 housing units were advanced in occupied East Jerusalem.
    Israel spends at least 7 million dollars on zionist Super Bowl advertisement.
    Dutch court orders Netherlands to halt delivery of F-35 jet parts to Israel.
    US Senator Bernie Sanders: “No one in Congress” should support the Biden administration sending military aid to Israel, Netanyahu’s “war machine” is responsible for an “unprecedented humanitarian disaster.”
    Military expert: Israeli army invasion of Rafah would lead to genocide, considering over a million Palestinians are living in 60 square kilometers, reported Al Jazeera
    Dutch court orders government to halt delivery of F-35 fighter jet parts used by Israel in its attacks on Gaza, saying there is a “clear risk” that the parts being exported by the Netherlands are being used in “serious violations of international humanitarian law”.
    Israel ‘deports’ 51-year-old Palestinian journalist from occupied West Bank to Gaza Strip.
    Israel bombards Rafah ahead of planned ground invasion

    The Israeli military has ramped up its attacks on Rafah in southern Gaza as it prepares for a possible ground offensive on the Palestinian city, which has become one of the most densely populated areas in the world.

    Advertisement

    Watch now: NOURA ERAKAT on Witnessing Palestine with Frank Barat
    Rafah, which borders Egypt, is the last key city that Israeli troops have yet to enter. The area was once designated a “safe zone,” although it has been subjected to constant air attacks since Israel’s offensive began.

    Overnight on Sunday, the military intensified their air raid on the city, killing at least 67 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, including babies and children.

    The strikes have resulted in significant destruction in Rafah, damaging homes, businesses, and mosques, which, according to Al Jazeera, are hosting 1.4 million Palestinians.

    Hamas has condemned the latest Israeli air strikes on Rafah in southern Gaza, saying they represent an “expansion of the scope of the massacres it is committing against our people,” in a press release, reported Al Jazeera.

    “The Nazi occupation army’s attack on the city of Rafah tonight” the group said, “is considered a continuation of the genocidal war and the attempts at forced displacement it is waging against our Palestinian people,” the group continued.

    Similarly, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry has “condemned in the strongest terms the mass massacres” the Israeli forces continue to commit against Palestinians, especially displaced people.

    “Israel is officially continuing to target civilians and transfer the war to Rafah to push the population to get displaced under bombardment,” it said in a statement released on X.

    “The recent massacres of the occupation are evidence of the validity of international warnings and fears of catastrophic results of the expansion of the war to Rafah,” the ministry added.

    The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned of “dire consequences” of an Israeli military assault on the southern city.

    “Egypt reiterates its complete rejection of statements by top Israeli officials about launching a military operation on Rafah, warning of its dire consequences, in light of the humanitarian catastrophe it threatens to deepen,” the ministry said in a statement.

    “Egypt called for the necessity of uniting all international and regional efforts to prevent the targeting of the Palestinian city of Rafah,” it added.

    Military expert Wassef Erekat has told Al Jazeera that an Israeli army invasion of Rafah would lead to genocide, considering over a million Palestinians are living in 60 square kilometers.

    “It would be another tragedy befalling the Palestinian people, a catastrophe of epic proportions,” he said.

    Erekat added that in the eyes of Netanyahu, a war without an invasion of Rafah would mean an admission of defeat.

    “An invasion has dangerous and disastrous repercussions. Any number of scenarios can unfold: allowing the displaced back into the central and northern Gaza Strip, pushing them into [Egypt’s] Sinai, or merely bombing them further,” Erekat added.

    The evacuation of Rafah would be ‘unlawful’, human rights experts warn

    The majority of those in Rafah have been forcibly displaced several times since October due to Israel’s offensive, which has gradually expanded its invasion across the besieged enclave.

    The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) “estimates that in total at least 395 IDPs [internally displaced persons] sheltering in UNRWA shelters have been killed and at least a further 1,379 injured” since October 7, it said in a statement.

    Nadia Hardman, researcher at Human Rights Watch, has said that people are already struggling to survive in the small area where they have been pushed and displaced.

    Hardman told Al Jazeera that people she spoke with, some of whom have been displaced up to 10 times, say they are fearful of a ground invasion of the area.

    “The one question they continue to ask is ‘Where do we go?’ They have fled from areas that were once considered safe. Israel’s promise to provide safe passage must be analyzed in light of the fact that it has consistently failed to do this,” Hardman said.

    “This evacuation would be unlawful if it is ordered,” she added.

    The Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Catherine Russell, has said that the civilians in Rafah must be protected no matter what.

    “Civilians are pushed into a corner, living on streets or in shelters. They must be protected. They have nowhere safe to go,” Russell posted on X, adding that the area is teaming with children and families.

    “Rafah already has nearly half of Gaza’s population. Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, people have been fleeing to Rafah following Israeli evacuation orders.” Nebal Farsakh, the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) spokesperson, told Al Jazeera.

    “There is no safe place at all, and there is no way to evacuate. On top of that, there is a complete destruction of the infrastructure, and the lack of transportation as well makes it impossible for people to make their way anywhere,” Farsakh added.

    “We are asking to stop war because it has continued for so long,” he concluded.

    Healthcare system in Gaza continues to suffer

    Medical care all across the besieged enclave has been severely affected by Israel’s deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities. With the looming ground invasion of Rafah, Medical professionals are apprehensive about how the ground operation would further debilitate the already collapsed health system in the area.

    Jamal al-Hams, a doctor at the Kuwaiti Hospital in Rafah, told Al Jazeera that an Israeli attack on the southern city would cause endless suffering for Palestinians.

    “We are suffering a lot during these days because of the huge number of people who have been displaced from the northern and middle areas of the Gaza Strip towards Rafah,” al-Hams said.

    “Secondly, we [already] have a huge number of injured people and patients with chronic diseases and acute illnesses who have been collected from all over the Gaza Strip [to Rafah]. We are suffering from the shortage of medical disposables and drugs. Most of the antibiotics and analgesics are not available.”

    “We have changed the admission beds to emergency beds. The Najjar Hospital has a bed capacity of 70, and they changed it to 200 but that is still not enough,” al-Hams continued.

    “I don’t know what is coming but I am sure that we will suffer very much,” al-Hams concluded.

    “There would be no place for more injured people. There will be no bed capacity, not even for one, because all hospitals [in the south] – the European, Najjar, and Kuwaiti – are all at full capacity.”

    World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has described the reports of Israel’s looming offensive as “extremely worrying”.

    “Proceeding with the plans could have gravely devastating consequences for the 1.4 million people who have nowhere else left to go, and who have almost no place left to seek health care,” he posted on X.

    Moreover, the WHO chief said hospitals in Rafah in the Gaza Strip were “overwhelmed and overflowing.”

    “In the rest of the Strip, a majority of hospitals are either minimally or non-functional,” he added.

    Meanwhile, in Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, sewage water has flooded the emergency department of the medical complex, hindering medical staff from providing life-saving medical care.

    The Palestinian Ministry of Health is calling for the protection of the hospital’s technical staff to repair the sewage network in the medical courtyard, where seven people have been shot dead by Israeli snipers and 14 others injured.

    Both al Nasser and Al Amal hospital in Khan Younis have been under military siege for over two weeks and subjected to constant Israeli attacks.

    PCRS has once again called on the international community to protect healthcare professionals after Israeli forces killed two PRCS paramedics in an airstrike on their way to rescue six-year-old Hind Rajab, who was also killed by Israel a few meters away.

    “According to international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, the direct targeting and deliberate killing of PRCS crews and volunteers is considered a war crime,” the group said in a statement on X.

    “[T]he contracting parties that signed the Geneva Conventions and are obligated to enforce respect for international humanitarian law must take the necessary measures to suppress, rebuke and punish the perpetrators.”

    Francesca Albanese, the United Nations rapporteur on Palestine, has also said that Israel’s escalation in Gaza has led to hundreds of casualties, more devastation, and forced displacement, defying the terms the International Court of Justice imposed on Israel, including ending incitement to genocide and improving the supply of humanitarian aid.

    “Israel is obligated to adhere to the court’s order and states must act decisively to prevent further atrocities,” she said.

    Despite growing international calls, U.S. won’t tell Israel not to invade Rafah

    Despite the growing international concern regarding the plans to invade Rafah, Israel is determined to go forward with the attack. Meanwhile, the US has put little to no pressure on Israel to halt their plans, aside from a verbal request, with no material pressure, to protect civilian lives.

    The White House released a readout after Biden’s call with Netanyahu, where the US president said: “a military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for more than one million people sheltering there.”

    The readout added that Biden stressed “the need to capitalize on progress made in the negotiations to secure the release of all hostages as soon as possible.”

    Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative told Al Jazeera that the fact that the United States president did not call for an immediate ceasefire represents a regression in US policy vis-a-vis the war on Gaza.

    “What I expected to hear from Biden [is something] we will never hear. His comments about the imminent Israeli attack on Rafah should have been accompanied by the United States supporting a ceasefire,” he said.

    “Rafah is the only area that is not destroyed completely in Gaza. Israel never gave up on its plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population into Egypt. That’s what the US president should have opposed. But he doesn’t. The US is a participant in this attack,” Barghouti continued.

    “For days, United States officials have been suggesting that this potential Rafah military operation would be disastrous and that it can’t go ahead, but now we have the conditions for the Rafah operation to go ahead, despite the 1.5 million people there,” Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi pointed out.

    As the US funded Israel’s increasing attacks, the American public tuned into the Super Bowl, where Israel spent at least 7 million dollars on zionist propaganda to be shown during the football game advertisements.

    Australian Senator David Shoebridge has decried the bombardment on Rafah and questioned the timing while viewers in the United States watch the Super Bowl.

    “The attack on Rafah happening at 2am Gaza time while the US is watching the Superbowl is utterly horrific and devastating,” said Shoebridge.

    “Our hearts are with the Palestinian people now more than ever,” he added.

    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/2024/02/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-129-israel-bombards-rafah-killing-more-than-60-in-a-night/


    ☝https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-129-israel.html
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 129: Israel bombards Rafah, killing more than 60 in a night 67 Palestinians, including babies and children, were killed Sunday night as Israel intensified bombing in Rafah, where over 1 million Palestinians are sheltering, in preparation for a ground invasion that experts warn would amount to genocide. Leila WarahFebruary 12, 2024 A Palestinian man inspects the rubble of a building destroyed in an Israeli airstrike in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip Palestinians inpect the damage in the rubble of a building where two Israeli captives were reportedly held before being extracted in an operation by Israeli forcess in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip on February 12, 2024. Israeli bombardments on Rafah on the 12th killed more than 60 Palestinians. (Bashar Taleb/ APA Images) Casualties: 28,340+ killed* and at least 67,984 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 380+ 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. 566 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.** *This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on Telegram channel. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 35,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. ** This figure is released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.” Key Developments: Hamas’ military wing says Israeli bombing kills two Israeli captives and wounds of eight others, it is unclear where the attacks took place. CENTCOM: US carries out “self-defense strikes” in Yemen. UNICEF: Civilians in Rafah must be protected as they have nowhere to go. UN: At least 395 displaced people killed in UNRWA shelters since October 7 100 Palestinian bodies recovered from Gaza City after Israeli troops withdrew, most killed by sniper bullets. Israel says two captives rescued from Rafah in southern Gaza, claims they are in good medical condition. In the last 24 hours, Israeli forces killed 164 people and injured 200 in Gaza, a ministry statement on Telegram said. At least 67 Palestinians killed in overnight Israeli airstrikes in Rafah, says the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Israeli forces kill Palestinian man in occupied West Bank In four months, 17 settlement plans for over 8,400 housing units were advanced in occupied East Jerusalem. Israel spends at least 7 million dollars on zionist Super Bowl advertisement. Dutch court orders Netherlands to halt delivery of F-35 jet parts to Israel. US Senator Bernie Sanders: “No one in Congress” should support the Biden administration sending military aid to Israel, Netanyahu’s “war machine” is responsible for an “unprecedented humanitarian disaster.” Military expert: Israeli army invasion of Rafah would lead to genocide, considering over a million Palestinians are living in 60 square kilometers, reported Al Jazeera Dutch court orders government to halt delivery of F-35 fighter jet parts used by Israel in its attacks on Gaza, saying there is a “clear risk” that the parts being exported by the Netherlands are being used in “serious violations of international humanitarian law”. Israel ‘deports’ 51-year-old Palestinian journalist from occupied West Bank to Gaza Strip. Israel bombards Rafah ahead of planned ground invasion The Israeli military has ramped up its attacks on Rafah in southern Gaza as it prepares for a possible ground offensive on the Palestinian city, which has become one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Advertisement Watch now: NOURA ERAKAT on Witnessing Palestine with Frank Barat Rafah, which borders Egypt, is the last key city that Israeli troops have yet to enter. The area was once designated a “safe zone,” although it has been subjected to constant air attacks since Israel’s offensive began. Overnight on Sunday, the military intensified their air raid on the city, killing at least 67 Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, including babies and children. The strikes have resulted in significant destruction in Rafah, damaging homes, businesses, and mosques, which, according to Al Jazeera, are hosting 1.4 million Palestinians. Hamas has condemned the latest Israeli air strikes on Rafah in southern Gaza, saying they represent an “expansion of the scope of the massacres it is committing against our people,” in a press release, reported Al Jazeera. “The Nazi occupation army’s attack on the city of Rafah tonight” the group said, “is considered a continuation of the genocidal war and the attempts at forced displacement it is waging against our Palestinian people,” the group continued. Similarly, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry has “condemned in the strongest terms the mass massacres” the Israeli forces continue to commit against Palestinians, especially displaced people. “Israel is officially continuing to target civilians and transfer the war to Rafah to push the population to get displaced under bombardment,” it said in a statement released on X. “The recent massacres of the occupation are evidence of the validity of international warnings and fears of catastrophic results of the expansion of the war to Rafah,” the ministry added. The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned of “dire consequences” of an Israeli military assault on the southern city. “Egypt reiterates its complete rejection of statements by top Israeli officials about launching a military operation on Rafah, warning of its dire consequences, in light of the humanitarian catastrophe it threatens to deepen,” the ministry said in a statement. “Egypt called for the necessity of uniting all international and regional efforts to prevent the targeting of the Palestinian city of Rafah,” it added. Military expert Wassef Erekat has told Al Jazeera that an Israeli army invasion of Rafah would lead to genocide, considering over a million Palestinians are living in 60 square kilometers. “It would be another tragedy befalling the Palestinian people, a catastrophe of epic proportions,” he said. Erekat added that in the eyes of Netanyahu, a war without an invasion of Rafah would mean an admission of defeat. “An invasion has dangerous and disastrous repercussions. Any number of scenarios can unfold: allowing the displaced back into the central and northern Gaza Strip, pushing them into [Egypt’s] Sinai, or merely bombing them further,” Erekat added. The evacuation of Rafah would be ‘unlawful’, human rights experts warn The majority of those in Rafah have been forcibly displaced several times since October due to Israel’s offensive, which has gradually expanded its invasion across the besieged enclave. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) “estimates that in total at least 395 IDPs [internally displaced persons] sheltering in UNRWA shelters have been killed and at least a further 1,379 injured” since October 7, it said in a statement. Nadia Hardman, researcher at Human Rights Watch, has said that people are already struggling to survive in the small area where they have been pushed and displaced. Hardman told Al Jazeera that people she spoke with, some of whom have been displaced up to 10 times, say they are fearful of a ground invasion of the area. “The one question they continue to ask is ‘Where do we go?’ They have fled from areas that were once considered safe. Israel’s promise to provide safe passage must be analyzed in light of the fact that it has consistently failed to do this,” Hardman said. “This evacuation would be unlawful if it is ordered,” she added. The Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Catherine Russell, has said that the civilians in Rafah must be protected no matter what. “Civilians are pushed into a corner, living on streets or in shelters. They must be protected. They have nowhere safe to go,” Russell posted on X, adding that the area is teaming with children and families. “Rafah already has nearly half of Gaza’s population. Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, people have been fleeing to Rafah following Israeli evacuation orders.” Nebal Farsakh, the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) spokesperson, told Al Jazeera. “There is no safe place at all, and there is no way to evacuate. On top of that, there is a complete destruction of the infrastructure, and the lack of transportation as well makes it impossible for people to make their way anywhere,” Farsakh added. “We are asking to stop war because it has continued for so long,” he concluded. Healthcare system in Gaza continues to suffer Medical care all across the besieged enclave has been severely affected by Israel’s deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities. With the looming ground invasion of Rafah, Medical professionals are apprehensive about how the ground operation would further debilitate the already collapsed health system in the area. Jamal al-Hams, a doctor at the Kuwaiti Hospital in Rafah, told Al Jazeera that an Israeli attack on the southern city would cause endless suffering for Palestinians. “We are suffering a lot during these days because of the huge number of people who have been displaced from the northern and middle areas of the Gaza Strip towards Rafah,” al-Hams said. “Secondly, we [already] have a huge number of injured people and patients with chronic diseases and acute illnesses who have been collected from all over the Gaza Strip [to Rafah]. We are suffering from the shortage of medical disposables and drugs. Most of the antibiotics and analgesics are not available.” “We have changed the admission beds to emergency beds. The Najjar Hospital has a bed capacity of 70, and they changed it to 200 but that is still not enough,” al-Hams continued. “I don’t know what is coming but I am sure that we will suffer very much,” al-Hams concluded. “There would be no place for more injured people. There will be no bed capacity, not even for one, because all hospitals [in the south] – the European, Najjar, and Kuwaiti – are all at full capacity.” World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has described the reports of Israel’s looming offensive as “extremely worrying”. “Proceeding with the plans could have gravely devastating consequences for the 1.4 million people who have nowhere else left to go, and who have almost no place left to seek health care,” he posted on X. Moreover, the WHO chief said hospitals in Rafah in the Gaza Strip were “overwhelmed and overflowing.” “In the rest of the Strip, a majority of hospitals are either minimally or non-functional,” he added. Meanwhile, in Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, sewage water has flooded the emergency department of the medical complex, hindering medical staff from providing life-saving medical care. The Palestinian Ministry of Health is calling for the protection of the hospital’s technical staff to repair the sewage network in the medical courtyard, where seven people have been shot dead by Israeli snipers and 14 others injured. Both al Nasser and Al Amal hospital in Khan Younis have been under military siege for over two weeks and subjected to constant Israeli attacks. PCRS has once again called on the international community to protect healthcare professionals after Israeli forces killed two PRCS paramedics in an airstrike on their way to rescue six-year-old Hind Rajab, who was also killed by Israel a few meters away. “According to international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, the direct targeting and deliberate killing of PRCS crews and volunteers is considered a war crime,” the group said in a statement on X. “[T]he contracting parties that signed the Geneva Conventions and are obligated to enforce respect for international humanitarian law must take the necessary measures to suppress, rebuke and punish the perpetrators.” Francesca Albanese, the United Nations rapporteur on Palestine, has also said that Israel’s escalation in Gaza has led to hundreds of casualties, more devastation, and forced displacement, defying the terms the International Court of Justice imposed on Israel, including ending incitement to genocide and improving the supply of humanitarian aid. “Israel is obligated to adhere to the court’s order and states must act decisively to prevent further atrocities,” she said. Despite growing international calls, U.S. won’t tell Israel not to invade Rafah Despite the growing international concern regarding the plans to invade Rafah, Israel is determined to go forward with the attack. Meanwhile, the US has put little to no pressure on Israel to halt their plans, aside from a verbal request, with no material pressure, to protect civilian lives. The White House released a readout after Biden’s call with Netanyahu, where the US president said: “a military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for more than one million people sheltering there.” The readout added that Biden stressed “the need to capitalize on progress made in the negotiations to secure the release of all hostages as soon as possible.” Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative told Al Jazeera that the fact that the United States president did not call for an immediate ceasefire represents a regression in US policy vis-a-vis the war on Gaza. “What I expected to hear from Biden [is something] we will never hear. His comments about the imminent Israeli attack on Rafah should have been accompanied by the United States supporting a ceasefire,” he said. “Rafah is the only area that is not destroyed completely in Gaza. Israel never gave up on its plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population into Egypt. That’s what the US president should have opposed. But he doesn’t. The US is a participant in this attack,” Barghouti continued. “For days, United States officials have been suggesting that this potential Rafah military operation would be disastrous and that it can’t go ahead, but now we have the conditions for the Rafah operation to go ahead, despite the 1.5 million people there,” Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi pointed out. As the US funded Israel’s increasing attacks, the American public tuned into the Super Bowl, where Israel spent at least 7 million dollars on zionist propaganda to be shown during the football game advertisements. Australian Senator David Shoebridge has decried the bombardment on Rafah and questioned the timing while viewers in the United States watch the Super Bowl. “The attack on Rafah happening at 2am Gaza time while the US is watching the Superbowl is utterly horrific and devastating,” said Shoebridge. “Our hearts are with the Palestinian people now more than ever,” he added. 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/2024/02/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-129-israel-bombards-rafah-killing-more-than-60-in-a-night/ ☝https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-129-israel.html
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 129: Israel bombards Rafah, killing more than 60 in a night
    67 Palestinians, including babies and children, were killed Sunday night as Israel intensified bombing in Rafah, where over 1 million Palestinians are sheltering, in preparation for a ground invasion that experts warn would amount to genocide.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 13220 Ansichten
  • 8 Tips To Prepare For Ramadan in Rajab
    Let's prepare for Ramadan in Rajab, one of the four sacred months in Islam.

    What to do in Rajab

    Tips to prepare for Ramadan fasting, Rejab, Rajab

    “I want to do better this year and reap all the rewards that I can!” are some of the thoughts we often try to achieve as we look into the remaining days before Ramadan. The challenge is to stay motivated and retain consistency. Some of us tend to feel unmotivated as early as the first week of Ramadan.

    Have you ever gone through that cycle every year and wondered why is it difficult to stay motivated along the way, just to find yourself regretting it in the end?

    It is nevertheless a good move to want to do something great during Ramadan. However, like any other battle, we have to plan and strategise to enter it fully prepared. There is a saying that goes; “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail” and Rajab is one of the best times to start preparing for Ramadan.

    Rajab is one of the four sacred months, other than Zulkaedah, Zulhijjah and Muharram. Allah s.w.t. mentions in Surah At-Tawbah:

    Ű„ÙÙ†ÙŽÙ‘ ŰčÙŰŻÙŽÙ‘Ű©ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙÙ‘Ù‡ÙˆŰ±Ù ŰčÙÙ†ŰŻÙŽ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù Ű§Ű«Ù†Ű§ ŰčÙŽŰŽÙŽŰ±ÙŽ ŰŽÙŽÙ‡Ű±Ù‹Ű§ في كِŰȘŰ§ŰšÙ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù يَومَ ŰźÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ‚ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰłÙŽÙ‘Ù…Ű§ÙˆŰ§ŰȘِ ÙˆÙŽŰ§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰ±Ű¶ÙŽ Ù…ÙÙ†Ù‡Ű§ ŰŁÙŽŰ±ŰšÙŽŰčÙŽŰ©ÙŒ Ű­ÙŰ±ÙÙ…ÙŒ

    “Indeed, the number of months ordained by Allah is twelve—in Allah’s record since the day He created the heavens and the earth—of which four are sacred.”

    (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:36)

    Read: 4 Sacred Months in Islam

    The classical Muslim scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali quoted another scholar, Abu Bakr Al-Warraq, in his book Lataif al-Ma’arif:

    “Rajab is a month of cultivation, Syaaban is the month of irrigating the fields, and Ramadan is the month of reaping and harvesting.”

    This means that with the proper preparation and effort particularly in the month of Rajab, achieving the best Ramadan experience yet can be a possibility by Allah's Will.

    Read: Rajab: The Forgotten Sacred Month

    Thus, in order to achieve the goals you set, preparation has to start now. So here are 8 simple steps that you can follow to prepare for Ramadan:

    1. Prepare A Checklist

    Prepare a checklist for Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Yes, you read it correctly. You have to write down your goals instead of relying solely on a mental checklist. Pen down your checklist of what you would like to achieve in Ramadan.

    By doing so, you are subconsciously recording it in your mind as well. Then, hang the checklist where you can see it each and every day.

    This is to remind you of your goals constantly.

    2. Set Realistic Goals

    Set realistic goals for ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Set the goals you would like to achieve, but make sure that they are practical. It’s okay to set a goal as simple as donating or reading a page of the Quran every day. Instead of focusing on the number of pages, why not focus on the consistency of the 'Ibadah (worship)?

    The ultimate goal is to ensure the goals we set do not end here but continue beyond until we meet the next Ramadan, insyaAllah (God willing). There is a reason Islam encourages us to practise moderation in every aspect of our lives so that it will be easier for us to sustain and practise istiqomah (consistency). The Prophet s.a.w said:

    ŰŁÙŽŰ­ÙŽŰšÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰčÙ’Ù…ÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù Ű„ÙÙ„ÙŽÙ‰ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù ŰȘَŰčÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽÙ‰ ŰŁÙŽŰŻÙ’ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙÙ‡ÙŽŰ§ ÙˆÙŽŰ„ÙÙ†Ù’ قَلَّ

    “The most beloved deeds to Allah s.w.t are those which are done consistently, even if they are little,”

    (Sahih Al-Bukhari)

    3. Do Revision To Internalise The Meaning Of Ramadan

    Revise and read up on Ramadan and its meaning, Rejab, Rajab Start by reading about the virtues of Ramadan to internalise the meaning of fasting. For example, you could read about the multiple grades of fasting in Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship, a book that consists of selections from Imam Ghazali's Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din (The Revival of Islamic Sciences).

    Read: Frequently Asked Questions During Ramadan

    Besides that, revise the supplications and other types of remembrance that we can recite during Ramadan. It will be helpful to know when and how to do these acts of worship. Finally, on Lailatul Qadar (Night of Power), it is encouraged to read the different types of Sunnah prayers during Qiyamulail (night vigil prayers) and reap the great rewards.

    Read: How To Pray Tahajjud and Perform Qiyamullail

    4. Get The Engine Running

    Do sunnah fasting to prepare for ramadan, Rejab, Rajab
    We can start with fasting voluntarily, either Monday and Thursday, or on Ayyamul Bidh (the white days of fasting), being the 13th, 14th and 15th day of every month, or any three days of the month.

    ŰȘُŰčÙ’Ű±ÙŽŰ¶Ù Ű§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰčÙ’Ù…ÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù يَوْمَ Ű§Ù„Ű§ÙŰ«Ù’Ù†ÙŽÙŠÙ’Ù†Ù ÙˆÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù’ŰźÙŽÙ…ÙÙŠŰłÙ ÙÙŽŰŁÙŰ­ÙŰšÙÙ‘ ŰŁÙŽÙ†Ù’ يُŰčÙ’Ű±ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽ Űčَمَلِي ÙˆÙŽŰŁÙŽÙ†ÙŽŰ§ Ű”ÙŽŰ§ŰŠÙÙ…ÙŒ

    "Deeds are presented (before Allah) on Mondays and Thursdays, so I love that my actions be presented while I am fasting"

    (Sunan At-Tirmizi)

    The Prophet s.a.w was also reported in another hadith:

    وŰčنْ مُŰčŰ§Ű°Ű©ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰčÙŽŰŻÙŽÙˆÙÙŠÙŽÙ‘Ű©Ù ŰŁÙŽÙ†ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ű§ ŰłÙŽŰŁÙŽÙ„ÙŽŰȘْ ŰčŰ§ŰŠŰŽŰ©ÙŽ Ű±Ű¶ÙŠÙŽ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡ ŰčÙŽÙ†Ù’Ù‡ÙŽŰ§: ŰŁÙŽÙƒŰ§Ù†ÙŽ Ű±ÙŽŰłÙÙˆÙ„Ù Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù ï·ș ÙŠŰ”ÙˆÙ…Ù مِن كُلِّ ŰŽÙŽÙ‡Ű±Ù Ű«Ù„Ű§Ű«Ű©ÙŽ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙŽÙ‘Ű§Ù…ÙŰŸ Ù‚ÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽŰȘ: نَŰčَمْ. فَقُلْŰȘُ: منْ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù’Ű± ÙƒÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ ÙŠÙŽŰ”ÙÙˆÙ…ÙŰŸ Ù‚ÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽŰȘْ: لَمْ يَكُن ÙŠÙŰšÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŠ مِنْ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù’Ű±Ù ÙŠÙŽŰ”ÙÙˆÙ…Ù.

    I heard Muaz say; "I asked Aisyah r.a; Did the Prophet s.a.w. fast three days each month?" She replied: "Yes," I asked: "Which days did he fast?" She replied: "He did not care on which day he fasted"

    (Sahih Muslim)

    Also, we can choose an action that we want to do consistently, such as reading verses of the Quran, waking up at night even if we managed to pray just 2 rakaat of tahajjud (night vigil prayer) just before Subuh or giving charity every Friday. Hopefully, this will become a habit, not only during Ramadan but after that as well.

    5. Prepare for Syawal

    Prepare for Hari Raya before fasting in Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Do the major shopping or spring cleaning before we enter Ramadan so that we can give our 100 per cent of focus in Ramadan for acts of worship. It is troublesome to divide our time for Hari Raya preparation while trying to achieve the goals we have set in Ramadan.

    So why not do them now?

    6. Plan Your Meals And Work Out

    Plan your meals for Ramadan, rejab, rajab Undoubtedly, for us to be able to do these acts of worship, we need a healthy body. As the saying goes, a healthy body leads to a healthy mind. Plan your meals so that you will eat moderately and waste less. Plan your workout activities. Fasting should not be the reason to skip our exercise. Do workouts that focus on strength rather than cardio.

    7. Prepare For Your Menstruation Days

    Find out what is allowed during menstruation in islam, Rejab, Rajab Ladies, don’t despair. These days are there not for us to feel sad nor to stop all our deeds. Instead, we can increase worship. There are only a few prohibitions during this time such as fasting, praying and holding the Quran. Aside from that, we can still do zikr (words of remembrance), give charity and help to prepare sahur (breakfast) and iftar (breaking the fast).

    Read: 7 Things You Can Do If You Cannot Fast During Ramadan

    8. Make Constant Dua

    Make constant Dua to reach Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab It was narrated in Lataif al-Ma’arif by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali that the companions will supplicate for 6 months to allow them to reach Ramadan safely. They will then pray for another 6 months after Ramadan that may Allah accept from them their acts of worship observed in the month of Ramadan. We can recite the following doa:

    Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡ÙÙ…ÙŽÙ‘ ŰšÙŽŰ§Ű±ÙÙƒÙ’ Ù„ÙŽÙ†ÙŽŰ§ فِي Ű±ÙŽŰŹÙŽŰšŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰŽÙŽŰčÙ’ŰšÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰšÙŽÙ„ÙÙ‘ŰșÙ’Ù†ÙŽŰ§ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ

    Allahumma barik lana fi Rajab wa Sha’ban wa ballighna Ramadan

    “O Allah make the months of Rajab and Sha’ban blessed for us and let us reach the month of Ramadan.”

    (Musnad Ahmad)

    And the Dua:

    Ű§Ù„Ù„Ù‘ÙŽÙ‡ÙÙ…Ù‘ÙŽ ŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙÙ…Ù’Ù†ÙÙŠ مِنْ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙÙ…Ù’ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ Ù„ÙÙŠŰŒ وَŰȘÙŽŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙŽÙ…Ù’Ù‡Ù مِنِّي مُŰȘÙŽÙ‚ÙŽŰšÙ‘ÙŽÙ„Ù‹Ű§

    Allahumma Sallimni min Ramadhan. Wa sallim Ramadhana li. Wa tasallamhu minni mutaqabbala

    “O Allah preserve me for Ramadan, safeguard Ramadan for me and accept it for me.”

    (narrated by Imam At-Tabrani)

    After all, it is His blessings in Ramadan that we yearn for. So in preparing to reap the rewards, let’s turn to Him and ask from the Most Giving. May Allah eases our preparation to meet the holy month this year and May Allah s.w.t accept all our deeds.



    https://muslim.sg/articles/how-to-prepare-for-ramadan

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/8-tips-to-prepare-for-ramadan-in-rajab.html
    8 Tips To Prepare For Ramadan in Rajab Let's prepare for Ramadan in Rajab, one of the four sacred months in Islam. What to do in Rajab Tips to prepare for Ramadan fasting, Rejab, Rajab “I want to do better this year and reap all the rewards that I can!” are some of the thoughts we often try to achieve as we look into the remaining days before Ramadan. The challenge is to stay motivated and retain consistency. Some of us tend to feel unmotivated as early as the first week of Ramadan. Have you ever gone through that cycle every year and wondered why is it difficult to stay motivated along the way, just to find yourself regretting it in the end? It is nevertheless a good move to want to do something great during Ramadan. However, like any other battle, we have to plan and strategise to enter it fully prepared. There is a saying that goes; “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail” and Rajab is one of the best times to start preparing for Ramadan. Rajab is one of the four sacred months, other than Zulkaedah, Zulhijjah and Muharram. Allah s.w.t. mentions in Surah At-Tawbah: Ű„ÙÙ†ÙŽÙ‘ ŰčÙŰŻÙŽÙ‘Ű©ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙÙ‘Ù‡ÙˆŰ±Ù ŰčÙÙ†ŰŻÙŽ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù Ű§Ű«Ù†Ű§ ŰčÙŽŰŽÙŽŰ±ÙŽ ŰŽÙŽÙ‡Ű±Ù‹Ű§ في كِŰȘŰ§ŰšÙ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù يَومَ ŰźÙŽÙ„ÙŽÙ‚ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰłÙŽÙ‘Ù…Ű§ÙˆŰ§ŰȘِ ÙˆÙŽŰ§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰ±Ű¶ÙŽ Ù…ÙÙ†Ù‡Ű§ ŰŁÙŽŰ±ŰšÙŽŰčÙŽŰ©ÙŒ Ű­ÙŰ±ÙÙ…ÙŒ “Indeed, the number of months ordained by Allah is twelve—in Allah’s record since the day He created the heavens and the earth—of which four are sacred.” (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:36) Read: 4 Sacred Months in Islam The classical Muslim scholar Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali quoted another scholar, Abu Bakr Al-Warraq, in his book Lataif al-Ma’arif: “Rajab is a month of cultivation, Syaaban is the month of irrigating the fields, and Ramadan is the month of reaping and harvesting.” This means that with the proper preparation and effort particularly in the month of Rajab, achieving the best Ramadan experience yet can be a possibility by Allah's Will. Read: Rajab: The Forgotten Sacred Month Thus, in order to achieve the goals you set, preparation has to start now. So here are 8 simple steps that you can follow to prepare for Ramadan: 1. Prepare A Checklist Prepare a checklist for Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Yes, you read it correctly. You have to write down your goals instead of relying solely on a mental checklist. Pen down your checklist of what you would like to achieve in Ramadan. By doing so, you are subconsciously recording it in your mind as well. Then, hang the checklist where you can see it each and every day. This is to remind you of your goals constantly. 2. Set Realistic Goals Set realistic goals for ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Set the goals you would like to achieve, but make sure that they are practical. It’s okay to set a goal as simple as donating or reading a page of the Quran every day. Instead of focusing on the number of pages, why not focus on the consistency of the 'Ibadah (worship)? The ultimate goal is to ensure the goals we set do not end here but continue beyond until we meet the next Ramadan, insyaAllah (God willing). There is a reason Islam encourages us to practise moderation in every aspect of our lives so that it will be easier for us to sustain and practise istiqomah (consistency). The Prophet s.a.w said: ŰŁÙŽŰ­ÙŽŰšÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰčÙ’Ù…ÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù Ű„ÙÙ„ÙŽÙ‰ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù ŰȘَŰčÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽÙ‰ ŰŁÙŽŰŻÙ’ÙˆÙŽÙ…ÙÙ‡ÙŽŰ§ ÙˆÙŽŰ„ÙÙ†Ù’ قَلَّ “The most beloved deeds to Allah s.w.t are those which are done consistently, even if they are little,” (Sahih Al-Bukhari) 3. Do Revision To Internalise The Meaning Of Ramadan Revise and read up on Ramadan and its meaning, Rejab, Rajab Start by reading about the virtues of Ramadan to internalise the meaning of fasting. For example, you could read about the multiple grades of fasting in Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship, a book that consists of selections from Imam Ghazali's Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din (The Revival of Islamic Sciences). Read: Frequently Asked Questions During Ramadan Besides that, revise the supplications and other types of remembrance that we can recite during Ramadan. It will be helpful to know when and how to do these acts of worship. Finally, on Lailatul Qadar (Night of Power), it is encouraged to read the different types of Sunnah prayers during Qiyamulail (night vigil prayers) and reap the great rewards. Read: How To Pray Tahajjud and Perform Qiyamullail 4. Get The Engine Running Do sunnah fasting to prepare for ramadan, Rejab, Rajab We can start with fasting voluntarily, either Monday and Thursday, or on Ayyamul Bidh (the white days of fasting), being the 13th, 14th and 15th day of every month, or any three days of the month. ŰȘُŰčÙ’Ű±ÙŽŰ¶Ù Ű§Ù„ŰŁÙŽŰčÙ’Ù…ÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù يَوْمَ Ű§Ù„Ű§ÙŰ«Ù’Ù†ÙŽÙŠÙ’Ù†Ù ÙˆÙŽŰ§Ù„Ù’ŰźÙŽÙ…ÙÙŠŰłÙ ÙÙŽŰŁÙŰ­ÙŰšÙÙ‘ ŰŁÙŽÙ†Ù’ يُŰčÙ’Ű±ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽ Űčَمَلِي ÙˆÙŽŰŁÙŽÙ†ÙŽŰ§ Ű”ÙŽŰ§ŰŠÙÙ…ÙŒ "Deeds are presented (before Allah) on Mondays and Thursdays, so I love that my actions be presented while I am fasting" (Sunan At-Tirmizi) The Prophet s.a.w was also reported in another hadith: وŰčنْ مُŰčŰ§Ű°Ű©ÙŽ Ű§Ù„ŰčÙŽŰŻÙŽÙˆÙÙŠÙŽÙ‘Ű©Ù ŰŁÙŽÙ†ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ű§ ŰłÙŽŰŁÙŽÙ„ÙŽŰȘْ ŰčŰ§ŰŠŰŽŰ©ÙŽ Ű±Ű¶ÙŠÙŽ Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡ ŰčÙŽÙ†Ù’Ù‡ÙŽŰ§: ŰŁÙŽÙƒŰ§Ù†ÙŽ Ű±ÙŽŰłÙÙˆÙ„Ù Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù ï·ș ÙŠŰ”ÙˆÙ…Ù مِن كُلِّ ŰŽÙŽÙ‡Ű±Ù Ű«Ù„Ű§Ű«Ű©ÙŽ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙŽÙ‘Ű§Ù…ÙŰŸ Ù‚ÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽŰȘ: نَŰčَمْ. فَقُلْŰȘُ: منْ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù’Ű± ÙƒÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ ÙŠÙŽŰ”ÙÙˆÙ…ÙŰŸ Ù‚ÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŽŰȘْ: لَمْ يَكُن ÙŠÙŰšÙŽŰ§Ù„ÙŠ مِنْ ŰŁÙŽÙŠÙÙ‘ Ű§Ù„ŰŽÙŽÙ‘Ù‡Ù’Ű±Ù ÙŠÙŽŰ”ÙÙˆÙ…Ù. I heard Muaz say; "I asked Aisyah r.a; Did the Prophet s.a.w. fast three days each month?" She replied: "Yes," I asked: "Which days did he fast?" She replied: "He did not care on which day he fasted" (Sahih Muslim) Also, we can choose an action that we want to do consistently, such as reading verses of the Quran, waking up at night even if we managed to pray just 2 rakaat of tahajjud (night vigil prayer) just before Subuh or giving charity every Friday. Hopefully, this will become a habit, not only during Ramadan but after that as well. 5. Prepare for Syawal Prepare for Hari Raya before fasting in Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab Do the major shopping or spring cleaning before we enter Ramadan so that we can give our 100 per cent of focus in Ramadan for acts of worship. It is troublesome to divide our time for Hari Raya preparation while trying to achieve the goals we have set in Ramadan. So why not do them now? 6. Plan Your Meals And Work Out Plan your meals for Ramadan, rejab, rajab Undoubtedly, for us to be able to do these acts of worship, we need a healthy body. As the saying goes, a healthy body leads to a healthy mind. Plan your meals so that you will eat moderately and waste less. Plan your workout activities. Fasting should not be the reason to skip our exercise. Do workouts that focus on strength rather than cardio. 7. Prepare For Your Menstruation Days Find out what is allowed during menstruation in islam, Rejab, Rajab Ladies, don’t despair. These days are there not for us to feel sad nor to stop all our deeds. Instead, we can increase worship. There are only a few prohibitions during this time such as fasting, praying and holding the Quran. Aside from that, we can still do zikr (words of remembrance), give charity and help to prepare sahur (breakfast) and iftar (breaking the fast). Read: 7 Things You Can Do If You Cannot Fast During Ramadan 8. Make Constant Dua Make constant Dua to reach Ramadan, Rejab, Rajab It was narrated in Lataif al-Ma’arif by Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali that the companions will supplicate for 6 months to allow them to reach Ramadan safely. They will then pray for another 6 months after Ramadan that may Allah accept from them their acts of worship observed in the month of Ramadan. We can recite the following doa: Ű§Ù„Ù„ÙŽÙ‘Ù‡ÙÙ…ÙŽÙ‘ ŰšÙŽŰ§Ű±ÙÙƒÙ’ Ù„ÙŽÙ†ÙŽŰ§ فِي Ű±ÙŽŰŹÙŽŰšŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰŽÙŽŰčÙ’ŰšÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰšÙŽÙ„ÙÙ‘ŰșÙ’Ù†ÙŽŰ§ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ Allahumma barik lana fi Rajab wa Sha’ban wa ballighna Ramadan “O Allah make the months of Rajab and Sha’ban blessed for us and let us reach the month of Ramadan.” (Musnad Ahmad) And the Dua: Ű§Ù„Ù„Ù‘ÙŽÙ‡ÙÙ…Ù‘ÙŽ ŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙÙ…Ù’Ù†ÙÙŠ مِنْ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽŰŒ ÙˆÙŽŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙÙ…Ù’ Ű±ÙŽÙ…ÙŽŰ¶ÙŽŰ§Ù†ÙŽ Ù„ÙÙŠŰŒ وَŰȘÙŽŰłÙŽÙ„Ù‘ÙŽÙ…Ù’Ù‡Ù مِنِّي مُŰȘÙŽÙ‚ÙŽŰšÙ‘ÙŽÙ„Ù‹Ű§ Allahumma Sallimni min Ramadhan. Wa sallim Ramadhana li. Wa tasallamhu minni mutaqabbala “O Allah preserve me for Ramadan, safeguard Ramadan for me and accept it for me.” (narrated by Imam At-Tabrani) After all, it is His blessings in Ramadan that we yearn for. So in preparing to reap the rewards, let’s turn to Him and ask from the Most Giving. May Allah eases our preparation to meet the holy month this year and May Allah s.w.t accept all our deeds. https://muslim.sg/articles/how-to-prepare-for-ramadan https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/8-tips-to-prepare-for-ramadan-in-rajab.html
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 11198 Ansichten
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.

    The Epoch Times

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

    By Yuhong Dong

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

    Summary of Key Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Order Now

    What is HPV?

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

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

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

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

    HPV-associated cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HPV vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries

    U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Australia HPV vaccines adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ovarian insufficiency

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

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

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

    VAERS analysis on ovarian failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really? This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Yuhong Dong The decline of public trust in COVID-19 vaccines significantly impacts vaccination rates against routine childhood diseases. This multiple-part series explores the international research done over the past two decades on the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine — believed to be one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Summary of Key Facts This multiple-part series offers a thorough analysis of concerns raised about HPV vaccination following the global HPV campaign, which commenced in 2006. In the U.S., the HPV vaccine was reported to have a disproportionately higher percentage of adverse events of fainting and blood clots in the veins. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that fainting can happen following the HPV vaccine, and recommends sitting or lying down to get the shot, then waiting for 15 minutes afterward. International scientists found that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) logged a substantial increase in reports of premature ovarian failure from 1.4 per year before 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine approval, yielding a Proportional Reporting Ratio of 46.1. The HPV vaccine is widely regarded as one of the most effective vaccines developed to date. Nevertheless, safety issues have been raised following its approval, and in response, additional research has been published and litigation has been brought on behalf of those with a vaccine injury. In this HPV vaccine series, Parts I and II explain how the vaccine works and the evidence suggesting there may be legitimate safety concerns. The remaining parts present questions about real-world vaccine effectiveness and identify specific ingredients which may pose harm. The information presented here is drawn from peer-reviewed scientific literature from the U.S., Australia, Denmark, Sweden, France and Japan, as well as statistics published by public health agencies in each of these countries. More than 100 hours of research and internal peer review among scientists with experience in infectious diseases, virology, clinical trials and vaccine epidemiology have been invested in presenting this summary of the evidence. Large registry-based studies have identified plausible associations between HPV vaccination and autoimmune conditions, including premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and chronic regional pain syndrome. While it is easy to be enthusiastic about recent advances in human vaccine technology, we should keep in mind that achieving real and lasting good health is much more than just the absence of a certain virus. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now What is HPV? According to the CDC, HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. HPV is a small DNA virus infecting human cutaneous epithelial cells in the mucosa and skin. More than 150 strains of the HPV virus have been identified. HPV infection is so common that the majority of sexually active people will get it at some point in their lives, even if they have only one or very few sexual partners. It can spread through sexual intercourse and oral sex. It can also pass between people through skin-to-skin contact, even by people who have no symptoms. HPV infection causes genital warts, some of which can turn into cancer. For the most part, however, HPV infection is benign. More than 90% of HPV infections cause no clinical symptoms and are self-limited, meaning the virus is cleared by the body via natural immunological defenses. HPV-associated cancers High-risk HPV types (types 16, 18 and others) can cause cervical cell abnormalities that are precursors to cancers. Type 16 is associated with approximately 50% of cervical cancers worldwide, and types 16 and 18 together are linked to 66% of cervical cancers. An additional five high-risk types, 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58, are linked with another 15% of cervical cancers and 11% of all HPV-associated cancers. Infection with a high-risk HPV type is associated with a higher chance of the development of cervical cancer but, by itself, HPV infection is not the sole risk factor to cause cancer. There are many other reasons, as discussed in this paper. Given the prevalence of infection, it is unsurprising that globally, cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women. In 2018, an estimated 570,000 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and more than 300,000 died of the disease. In the U.S., nearly 50,000 new HPV-associated cancers occur annually, with women infected at a slightly higher rate than men. But in 9 out of 10 cases, HPV goes away within two years without causing health problems. Only persistent HPV infections may lead to cancer. These infections evade the immune system’s innate cell-mediated defenses. The incidence of cervical cancer can be controlled as a result of the implementation of routine testing and screening, including Pap and DNA tests. HPV vaccines Three HPV vaccines — bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix, 2vHPV), quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil, 4vHPV or HPV4) and 9-valent HPV vaccine (Gardasil 9, 9vHPV) — have been licensed by the FDA. The HPV vaccine uses recombinant technology to assemble the shell of the virus — L1 capsid protein. These viral-like particles do not contain the virus genome and are not infectious. Cervarix, developed by GlaxoSmithKline, is a bivalent vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, that was pulled from the U.S. market in 2016 due to “very low market demand.” Merck’s original Gardasil vaccine was designed to prevent infections from four strains (types 6, 11, 16 and 18). On June 8, 2006, after the FDA’s fast-tracked review, Gardasil was approved for use in females ages 9 to 26 for the prevention of cervical, vulvar and vaginal cancers. According to the label accompanying the vaccine, the ingredients in Merck’s first Gardasil vaccine were proteins of HPV, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, yeast protein, sodium chloride, L-histidine, polysorbate 80, sodium borate and water for injection. On Oct. 16, 2009, the FDA approved Gardasil (HPV4) for use in boys ages 9 through 26 for the prevention of genital warts caused by HPV types 6 and 11, but not for cancer. In 2010, it approved Gardasil for the prevention of anal cancer in males and females ages 9 to 26. Four years later, the FDA approved an updated vaccine, Merck’s Gardasil 9, for use in girls ages 9 to 26 and boys ages 9 to 15 for the prevention of cervical, vaginal and anal cancers. Gardasil 9 contains the same ingredients as Gardasil, but offers protection against nine HPV strains, adding five additional types (HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52 and 58). The current HPV vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC is two doses for both boys and girls aged 11 or 12. However, it is approved for children as young as 9. The second dose is given 6 to 12 months after the first. For those aged 15 and above, a three-dose schedule is implemented at one- to two-month and six-month intervals, although antibody-level studies suggest that two doses are sufficient. The vaccine prompts the body to produce neutralizing antibodies against HPV. Antibody responses appear to peak seven months after the first dose (or one month after the third dose). The vaccine-induced antibody levels appear to be 10 to 100 times higher than those after natural infection. The high vaccine effectiveness (90 to 98%) against the fast-growing, abnormal cells which may cause precancerous lesions in people ages 16 to 26 suggested that the best timing for vaccination was to give it to patients before they became sexually active. HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events On Aug. 19, 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article authored by scientists from the FDA and CDC that reviewed the safety data for Gardasil for adverse events reported to VAERS between June 2006 through December 2008. During that time, there were 12,424 reports of adverse events. Of these, 772 (6.2%) were serious. VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which is subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, unconfirmed diagnosis, lack of denominator data and no unbiased comparison groups. Nevertheless, it is a useful and important tool for detecting postmarket safety issues with vaccines. A disproportionately high percentage of Gardasil VAERS reports were of syncope (fainting) and venous thromboembolic events (blood clots in the veins) compared with other vaccines. There were 8.2 syncope events per 100,000 HPV doses and 0.2 venous thromboembolic events per 100,000 HPV doses reported, respectively. The Gardasil package insert includes a warning about fainting, fever, dizziness, nausea and headaches (page 1) and notes at least the following adverse reactions reported during postmarketing surveillance (section 6.2): Guillain-Barré syndrome, transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events, pancreatitis and autoimmune disorders. Australia HPV vaccines adverse events In 2007, Australia reported an annual adverse drug reaction rate of 7.3/100,000, the highest since 2003, representing an 85% increase from 2006. Per the analysis of the Adverse Drug Reactions System database by the Australian Department of Health and Aging, this increase was “almost entirely due to” reports following the national rollout of the three-dose HPV vaccination program for young females in April 2007; 705 of the 1,538 adverse drug reactions reported that year were from the Gardasil vaccine. 1 vaccine adverse events australia chart In Australia, the ADR increase in 2007 was almost entirely due to the three-dose HPV vaccination program for females aged 12 to 26 years in April 2007. Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Moreover, though people may take different vaccines other than HPV, the HPV vaccine was the only suspected vaccine to cause adverse reactions in 96% of records. Twenty-nine percent had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable” and 6% were defined as “serious.” 2 vaccine types vaccine suspected chart In these HPV-induced ADRs, 674 were suspected to be related to HPV vaccines, 203 had causality ratings of “certain” or “probable,” and 43 were defined as “serious.” Credit: Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. Japan withdraws recommendation, vaccine acceptance plunged In 2013, the Japanese raised concerns about a variety of widely reported post-vaccination serious adverse events. This led the government to suspend recommending the HPV vaccine for six years. Vaccine acceptance of HPV in Japan plunged significantly after 2013, from 42.9% to 14.3%, or from 65.4% to 3.9%. Researchers around the world also started to investigate HPV safety. A World Health Organization (WHO) position paper released on July 14, 2017, concluded that the HPV vaccines were “extremely safe.” The same report estimated approximately 1.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million HPV doses, that no association with GBS was found, and that syncope (fainting) was “established as a common anxiety or stress-related reaction to the injection.” In the spring of 2022, Japan announced it was relaunching its HPV vaccination drive. Mainstream news outlets reported that for thousands of women, the cost of caution may have led to preventable HPV-induced cancers and an estimated 5,000 to 5,700 deaths. However, a true risk-benefit analysis would also consider the number of serious adverse events prevented by putting the program on hold. The question remains: Was Japan’s caution warranted, or should their national vaccination program have continued? Ovarian insufficiency Concerns that the vaccine may be negatively affecting fertility have been detailed in the scientific literature. In 2014, a peer-reviewed case series describing premature ovarian failure among Australian women following HPV vaccination was published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine. This prompted other researchers to systematically examine the VAERS data to see if there was a connection between premature ovarian failure and Gardasil. Their study found a “potential safety signal” and concluded that “further investigations are warranted.” VAERS analysis on ovarian failure Two recent publications based on VAERS reports (first study, second study) found that events with a probable autoimmune background were significantly more frequent after HPV vaccination compared to other vaccinations. The team of international scientists that did the second study evaluated reports between 1990 and 2018. They found that among the 228,341 premature ovarian failure reports, 0.1% was considered to be associated with HPV vaccination with a median age of 15 years and the time to onset was 20.5 days following vaccination. The primary symptoms were amenorrhea (80.4%) and premature menopause (15.3%). Most strikingly, the mean number of premature ovarian failure cases increased significantly from 1.4 per year prior to 2006 to 22.2 per year after the HPV vaccine was approved, with a proportional reporting ratio of 46. The investigators noted that the WHO and CDC declared the HPV vaccine safe regardless of lacking adequate research into safety concerns. For example, the authors note that in a CDC-sponsored VAERS study, 17 cases of premature ovarian failure were identified but 15 were excluded due to insufficient information to confirm the diagnosis. A separate observational study using the Vaccine Safety Datalink found no increased risk. But this study was too underpowered to detect a signal. In addition, a cross-sectional survey study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data relied on an inaccurate measurement of premature ovarian failure and self-reported HPV vaccination. In summary, the researchers detected a strong safety signal even after accounting for a potential upswing in reports due to media coverage after the product launch (they refer to this as “notoriety bias”). Because VAERS is a passive reporting system, the data may be incomplete and are often unconfirmed by physicians. Therefore, this study cannot provide a definitive link between HPV vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency or premature ovarian failure but does generate a hypothetical link. The authors of the second study conclude by insisting that “this signal warrants well-designed and appropriate epidemiological research.” They note that “if the signal is confirmed, the risk is small compared to the lifetime risk of cervical cancer.” However, the benefit-risk profile on an individual level is not uniform. Given the health impacts of premature ovarian insufficiency and premature ovarian failure — some of which may be irreversible — and the declining mortality rate for cervical cancer even in the prevaccine era, the risk-benefit profile for HPV vaccination remains unclear. 3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency In the 2014 investigation mentioned above, a general practitioner in Australia noticed that three girls developed premature ovarian insufficiency following HPV4 vaccination. As a result of vaccination, each of the girls (ages 16, 16 and 18) had been prescribed oral contraception to treat menstrual cycle irregularities. Typically, women present with amenorrhea (no periods) or oligomenorrhea (infrequent periods) as the initial symptom of premature ovarian insufficiency. One girl had irregular periods following three doses of HPV vaccination. She then became amenorrheic and was diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency. Another girl’s periods were “like clockwork” until after the third HPV dose, which she received at age 15. Her first cycle after being vaccinated for the third time started two weeks late, and her next cycle was two months late. The final cycle began nine months later. The patient had no family history of early menopause. She was diagnosed with premature ovarian failure at 16. Lab work found hormone levels consistent with those of postmenopausal women, but her bone mineral density was normal. The authors of this case series noted that in preclinical studies of HPV4, the five-week-old rats only conceived one litter and the only available toxicology studies appear to be on the male rodent reproductive system. However, only two of three doses were administered prior to mating, and the overall fecundity was 95%, slightly lower than the control rats (98%) that received no vaccination prior to mating. The dose tolerance recommendations were based on an average weight of 50 kilograms for an adolescent girl but failed to take into account that HPV4 is administered to girls ages 9 to 13 years, who range in weight from 28 to 46 kilograms. Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link A 2021 study also evaluated premature ovarian insufficiency in a nationwide cohort of nearly 1 million Danish females ages 11 to 34 years. The researchers used Cox proportional hazard regression to detect an increased risk of premature ovarian insufficiency diagnosis by HPV4 vaccination status during the years 2007-2016. The hazard ratio for premature ovarian insufficiency (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) was 0.96. One limitation was that data on age at menarche (first menstruation) and oral contraceptive use were not available. Girls who had not yet reached menarche would not be at risk for premature ovarian insufficiency, of course. The authors excluded girls under age 15 in a sensitivity analysis and still found no signal, concluding that no association was found between HPV4 vaccination and premature ovarian insufficiency. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases from China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and a former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children's Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hpv-vaccine-safety-concerns-part-1-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
    This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 15106 Ansichten
  • Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here are six takeaways from the review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Order Now

    2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use. Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. global moratorium mrna covid vaccine feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science. Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review. The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule. After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail. Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials. They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.” They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote. Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies. It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender. “Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added. According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.” Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.” Here are six takeaways from the review: 1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years. To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote. The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease. However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines. There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction. The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself. The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.” The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now 2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do. “No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote. Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.” Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19. There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%. The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety. Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote. Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine. The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate. One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large. According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility. While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. “A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death. However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote. And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.” They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19. One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19. A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues. 3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data. Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here. First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group. “Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked. Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population. None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote. Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended. During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data. And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports. Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.” In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.” This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.” 4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary. Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population. The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants. Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.” After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke. And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems. Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system. In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems. The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious. In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal. “The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.” 5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems. Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs. Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues. That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids. Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown. McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns. Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown. 6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness. The review points readers to a series of papers that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. “The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection. They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself. They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientists-global-moratorium-mrna-vaccines-removal-childhood-schedule/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 13492 Ansichten
  • “Fake Victory at The Hague”: The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” “Those Responsible for the Genocide”
    donshafi911
    “Fake Victory at The Hague”: The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” “Those Responsible for the Genocide”
    The Criminalization of International Law. Part I
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).
    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
    .
    First published on January 29, 2024
    .
    Part I
    The Criminalization of International Law
    The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish”
    “Those Responsible for the Genocide”
    by
    Michel Chossudovsky
    Introduction
    While the ICJ has rejected Israel’s attempt to dismiss South Africa’s assertions, the Judgment –which is full of contradictions– is ultimately supportive of the Likud government.
    Moreover, no ceasefire was declared by the ICJ with a view to saving lives. Since October 7, amply documented, the atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At least 10,000 children have been killed: “That is one Palestinian child killed every 15 minutes… Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them are presumed dead.”
    Of significance: The Judgment intimates that the Israeli military rather than the Netanyahu government should be held responsible for committing criminal acts in violation of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. What this “fake statement” suggests is that “Netanyahu’s hands are clean”. Nonsense!
    There is ample evidence that the genocide was carefully planned well in advance of October 7, 2023 by Netanyahu’s Cabinet.
    There is a command structure within the Israeli military. Israeli soldiers and pilots obey the “illegal orders” emanating from the Netanyahu government.
    America Endorses The Genocide
    In many regards, The World Court’s Judgment contradicts its own mandate: Presided by a former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton, this should come as no surprise.
    The ICJ is under Washington’s Spotlight. Let us be under no illusions, the U.S has firmly endorsed Israel’s criminal undertaking:
    “The US said the ICJ ruling was consistentwith Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated.
    “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said. Al Jazeera, January 26, 2024, emphasis added)
    The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington.
    Moreover, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-US endeavor with US forces involved in Israel’s combat units.
    Nobody in the media nor in the peace movement has underscored the fact that the President of the ICJ is de facto in “conflict of interest”.
    “The anger of the World has been pacified for a while with the false celebration of a fake “victory” at The Hague. The US chief judge at ICJ must be laughing.
    Israel’s genocide will continue while the US and its chief justice at the ICJ keep the world at bay for very long with new false words and delaying actions.” (Karsten Riise, Global Research emphasis added)
    The Crimes Committed by Israel are “Genocidal In Character”
    According to The Republic of South Africa —referring to Article II of the Genocide Convention–, the crimes committed by the State of Israel “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group. …”:
    “The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.
    … That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine.
    The acts are all attributable to [The state of] Israel, which has failed to prevent genocide and is committing genocide in manifest violation of the Genocide Convention. … “(emphasis added)
    (See The Republic of South Africa’s 84 page document submitted to the ICJ)
    The Republic of South Africa’s Legal Team, ICJ, The Hague
    click the above to access the full test of the Genocide Convention
    Now Here Comes the “Upside Down Contradiction”. C’est le monde à l’envers
    Article IV of the Genocide Convention reads as follows:
    Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals
    In the Judgment (referring to Article IV above) the IJC calls upon the Netanyahu government, namely the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” to prevent and punish those individuals who allegedly committed crimes of genocide:
    “The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention.(ICJ, emphasis added)
    What this judgment intimates is that the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” including Netanyahu ARE INNOCENT. They have been assigned “TO PREVENT AND PUNISH”.
    The CRRs within Netanyahu’s Cabinet acting on behalf of the State of Israel-– who carefully planned prior to October 7, 2023 a genocidal attack against the People of Palestine have now been assigned to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials”, “private individuals” as well as members of the Military in acts of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”.
    Punishment for obvious reasons is not contemplated against the CRRs. See Article IV.
    What does this imply? Ask the Mafia Boss to Prevent and Punish?
    Under present circumstances, this “take all measures within its power” concept is tantamount to the criminalization of International Law: The CRRs Criminals in high office are invited to take law enforcement in their own hands.
    The Netanyahu government has ordered the most hideous crimes against the People of Palestine.
    And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to prevent and punish “public officials, “private individuals” (Article IV) as well as combatants within the Israeli military.
    Visibly, the prevent and punish requirement is not meant to apply to the so-called “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRR)” (i.e. “the good guys”) namely the “REAL CRIMINALS” in blatant contradiction with Article IV.
    It’s an absurd proposition. It unfortunately disallows Netanyahu to “prevent and punish himself”.
    And this is really what is required under international law.
    The Ceasefire
    While the Court acknowledges that criminal acts may have been committed by the State of Israel, it categorically refuses South Africa’s provisional demands including a “Ceasefire”, which would have served to interrupt at least temporarily the ongoing atrocities against the People of Palestine.
    Does this not constitute a “criminal act” by the ICJ, which indelibly will result in countless deaths of Palestinian civilians?
    What this signifies is that Netanyahu’s Genocide (from a strategic angle) is virtually unscathed, while sustaining rhetorical and meaningless condemnations against the State of Israel.
    Throughout history, wars and war crimes have invariably been instigated by “civilian politicians”.
    The Israeli military has been “Obeying Illegalorders” emanating from a government which is firmly committed to the conduct of genocide against the People of Palestine.
    And now the IJC Judgment enables Israel’s “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”, namely civilian politicians to place the blame on the Israeli Military.
    The Road Ahead: Resistance within the Armed Forces. “Disobey Illegal Orders. Abandon the Battlefield”
    There is resistance within the Armed Forces. Voices within Israel’s military have spoken out against the Netanyahu government. There is a Protest Movement in Israel.
    In response to the ICJ slanted decision, what is required is to initiate a Worldwide campaign entitled:
    Abandon the Battlefield and Disobey Illegal Orders under Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter
    The objective is to undermine the conduct of the genocide as well reverse the course of history.
    It is a proposal which sofar has not been the object of debate by anti-war activists in solidarity with Palestine.
    Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “provided a moral choice [is] possible“.
    Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a campaign encouraging:
    Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield”.
    The Campaign would focus on making that “moral choice” possible, namely to enable enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women to “Abandon the Battlefield”.
    The Abandon the Battlefield campaign will in large part be waged in Israel. In regards to Israel, already there are unfolding divisions in the IDF command structures, political divisions, coupled with a mass protest movement against Netanyahu. The use of a False Flag justification to wage the Genocide is amply documented.
    IDF soldiers and commanders must be informed and briefed on the significance of Nuremberg Principle IV.
    Inasmuch as the U.S. and its allies are waging a hegemonic war in major regions of the World, Abandon the Battlefield should be a call for action by the anti-war movement Worldwide.
    Click title page to access full document (pdf)
    Now let me turn my attention to Nuremberg Principle VI, which defines the crimes punishable under The Nuremberg Charter.
    Nuremberg Charter. Principle VI
    Both Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as well as President Joe Biden are responsible for “war crimes”, “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” as defined under Principle VI of the Nuremberg Charter:
    The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
    (a) Crimes against peace:
    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
    (b) War crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill- treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    (c) Crimes against humanity:
    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.
    Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield
    According to Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter:
    “The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S.soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him [her].”
    Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women.
    Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza.
    “Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield”. A campaign under Nuremberg Charter Principle IV.
    While it is predicated on international law, its conduct does not require the political rubber stamp of the ICJ. It is part of a grassroots campaign in Israel and the Middle East as well as Worldwide.
    Solidarity With Palestine
    Let us have tears to our eyes in solidarity with the People of Palestine, in building a mass movement Worldwide, which confronts the ongoing slaughter before our very eyes.
    Let us recall The Christmas Truce of 1914, more than 109 years ago:
    “Something happened in the early months of the “War to End All Wars” that put a tiny little blip of hope in the historical timeline of the organized mass slaughter that is war. The event was regarded by the professional military officer class to be so profound and so important (and so disturbing) that strategies were immediately put in place that would ensure that such an event could never happen again.” (Dr. Gary G. Kohls)
    The men learned in many ways that the official enemy was in fact not the real enemy, that the soldiers on the other side were human beings just like themselves.” (Dr. Jacques Pauwels)
    Let It Happen Again
    Today, we are “fraternizing” and acting in solidarity Worldwide with the People of Palestine against the hegemonic agenda of the U.S. and it allies which are waging an all-out war against humanity.
    Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the rights of soldiers and pilots who have the responsibility to Disobey Illegal Orders and Abandon the Battlefield
    Nuremberg Principle IV is not only a “Legal Text”, It is A Guiding Light in a Worldwide campaign against Acts of Genocide.
    (Principle IV was not available in 1914)
    Part II. Forthcoming
    ***
    Related Articles from our Archives

    https://telegra.ph/Fake-Victory-at-The-Hague-The-ICJ-Requires-Netanyahu-to-Prevent-and-Punish-Those-Responsible-for-the-Genocide-01-30

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-icj-requires-netanyahu-to-prevent-and-punish-those-responsible-for-the-genocide/5847666
    “Fake Victory at The Hague”: The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” “Those Responsible for the Genocide” donshafi911 “Fake Victory at The Hague”: The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” “Those Responsible for the Genocide” The Criminalization of International Law. Part I All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. . First published on January 29, 2024 . Part I The Criminalization of International Law The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to “Prevent” and “Punish” “Those Responsible for the Genocide” by Michel Chossudovsky Introduction While the ICJ has rejected Israel’s attempt to dismiss South Africa’s assertions, the Judgment –which is full of contradictions– is ultimately supportive of the Likud government. Moreover, no ceasefire was declared by the ICJ with a view to saving lives. Since October 7, amply documented, the atrocities committed against the People of Palestine are beyond description. At least 10,000 children have been killed: “That is one Palestinian child killed every 15 minutes… Thousands more are missing under the rubble, most of them are presumed dead.” Of significance: The Judgment intimates that the Israeli military rather than the Netanyahu government should be held responsible for committing criminal acts in violation of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. What this “fake statement” suggests is that “Netanyahu’s hands are clean”. Nonsense! There is ample evidence that the genocide was carefully planned well in advance of October 7, 2023 by Netanyahu’s Cabinet. There is a command structure within the Israeli military. Israeli soldiers and pilots obey the “illegal orders” emanating from the Netanyahu government. America Endorses The Genocide In many regards, The World Court’s Judgment contradicts its own mandate: Presided by a former legal advisor to Hillary Clinton, this should come as no surprise. The ICJ is under Washington’s Spotlight. Let us be under no illusions, the U.S has firmly endorsed Israel’s criminal undertaking: “The US said the ICJ ruling was consistentwith Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated. “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said. Al Jazeera, January 26, 2024, emphasis added) The President of the ICJ Joan E. Donoghue was a legal advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Obama administration. Joan Donoghue takes her instructions from Washington. Moreover, the conduct of the genocide is a joint Israel-US endeavor with US forces involved in Israel’s combat units. Nobody in the media nor in the peace movement has underscored the fact that the President of the ICJ is de facto in “conflict of interest”. “The anger of the World has been pacified for a while with the false celebration of a fake “victory” at The Hague. The US chief judge at ICJ must be laughing. Israel’s genocide will continue while the US and its chief justice at the ICJ keep the world at bay for very long with new false words and delaying actions.” (Karsten Riise, Global Research emphasis added) The Crimes Committed by Israel are “Genocidal In Character” According to The Republic of South Africa —referring to Article II of the Genocide Convention–, the crimes committed by the State of Israel “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group. …”: “The acts in question include killing Palestinians in Gaza, causing them serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction. … That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard inter alia to Israel’s failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine. The acts are all attributable to [The state of] Israel, which has failed to prevent genocide and is committing genocide in manifest violation of the Genocide Convention. … “(emphasis added) (See The Republic of South Africa’s 84 page document submitted to the ICJ) The Republic of South Africa’s Legal Team, ICJ, The Hague click the above to access the full test of the Genocide Convention Now Here Comes the “Upside Down Contradiction”. C’est le monde à l’envers Article IV of the Genocide Convention reads as follows: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals In the Judgment (referring to Article IV above) the IJC calls upon the Netanyahu government, namely the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” to prevent and punish those individuals who allegedly committed crimes of genocide: “The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention.(ICJ, emphasis added) What this judgment intimates is that the “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRRs)” including Netanyahu ARE INNOCENT. They have been assigned “TO PREVENT AND PUNISH”. The CRRs within Netanyahu’s Cabinet acting on behalf of the State of Israel-– who carefully planned prior to October 7, 2023 a genocidal attack against the People of Palestine have now been assigned to “take all measures within its power” to “prevent” and “punish” “public officials”, “private individuals” as well as members of the Military in acts of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”. Punishment for obvious reasons is not contemplated against the CRRs. See Article IV. What does this imply? Ask the Mafia Boss to Prevent and Punish? Under present circumstances, this “take all measures within its power” concept is tantamount to the criminalization of International Law: The CRRs Criminals in high office are invited to take law enforcement in their own hands. The Netanyahu government has ordered the most hideous crimes against the People of Palestine. And now the World Court has instructed a criminal government led by Netanyahu (who has a criminal record) to “take all measures within its power” to prevent and punish “public officials, “private individuals” (Article IV) as well as combatants within the Israeli military. Visibly, the prevent and punish requirement is not meant to apply to the so-called “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers (CRR)” (i.e. “the good guys”) namely the “REAL CRIMINALS” in blatant contradiction with Article IV. It’s an absurd proposition. It unfortunately disallows Netanyahu to “prevent and punish himself”. And this is really what is required under international law. The Ceasefire While the Court acknowledges that criminal acts may have been committed by the State of Israel, it categorically refuses South Africa’s provisional demands including a “Ceasefire”, which would have served to interrupt at least temporarily the ongoing atrocities against the People of Palestine. Does this not constitute a “criminal act” by the ICJ, which indelibly will result in countless deaths of Palestinian civilians? What this signifies is that Netanyahu’s Genocide (from a strategic angle) is virtually unscathed, while sustaining rhetorical and meaningless condemnations against the State of Israel. Throughout history, wars and war crimes have invariably been instigated by “civilian politicians”. The Israeli military has been “Obeying Illegalorders” emanating from a government which is firmly committed to the conduct of genocide against the People of Palestine. And now the IJC Judgment enables Israel’s “Constitutionally Responsible Rulers”, namely civilian politicians to place the blame on the Israeli Military. The Road Ahead: Resistance within the Armed Forces. “Disobey Illegal Orders. Abandon the Battlefield” There is resistance within the Armed Forces. Voices within Israel’s military have spoken out against the Netanyahu government. There is a Protest Movement in Israel. In response to the ICJ slanted decision, what is required is to initiate a Worldwide campaign entitled: Abandon the Battlefield and Disobey Illegal Orders under Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter The objective is to undermine the conduct of the genocide as well reverse the course of history. It is a proposal which sofar has not been the object of debate by anti-war activists in solidarity with Palestine. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the responsibility of combatants “to refuse the orders of Government or a superior … “provided a moral choice [is] possible“. Based on the Nuremberg Charter, what is required is a campaign encouraging: Israeli, American and NATO Combatants to “Disobey Unlawful Orders” and “Abandon the Battlefield”. The Campaign would focus on making that “moral choice” possible, namely to enable enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women to “Abandon the Battlefield”. The Abandon the Battlefield campaign will in large part be waged in Israel. In regards to Israel, already there are unfolding divisions in the IDF command structures, political divisions, coupled with a mass protest movement against Netanyahu. The use of a False Flag justification to wage the Genocide is amply documented. IDF soldiers and commanders must be informed and briefed on the significance of Nuremberg Principle IV. Inasmuch as the U.S. and its allies are waging a hegemonic war in major regions of the World, Abandon the Battlefield should be a call for action by the anti-war movement Worldwide. Click title page to access full document (pdf) Now let me turn my attention to Nuremberg Principle VI, which defines the crimes punishable under The Nuremberg Charter. Nuremberg Charter. Principle VI Both Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as well as President Joe Biden are responsible for “war crimes”, “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” as defined under Principle VI of the Nuremberg Charter: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). (b) War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill- treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds. Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield According to Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter: “The fact that a person [e.g. Israeli, U.S.soldiers, pilots] acted pursuant to order of his [her] Government or of a superior does not relieve him [her] from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him [her].” Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted Israeli, American, and NATO service men and women. Let us call upon Israeli and American soldiers and pilots “to abandon the battlefield”, as an act of refusal to participate in a criminal undertaking against the People of Gaza. “Disobey Unlawful Orders, Abandon the Battlefield”. A campaign under Nuremberg Charter Principle IV. While it is predicated on international law, its conduct does not require the political rubber stamp of the ICJ. It is part of a grassroots campaign in Israel and the Middle East as well as Worldwide. Solidarity With Palestine Let us have tears to our eyes in solidarity with the People of Palestine, in building a mass movement Worldwide, which confronts the ongoing slaughter before our very eyes. Let us recall The Christmas Truce of 1914, more than 109 years ago: “Something happened in the early months of the “War to End All Wars” that put a tiny little blip of hope in the historical timeline of the organized mass slaughter that is war. The event was regarded by the professional military officer class to be so profound and so important (and so disturbing) that strategies were immediately put in place that would ensure that such an event could never happen again.” (Dr. Gary G. Kohls) The men learned in many ways that the official enemy was in fact not the real enemy, that the soldiers on the other side were human beings just like themselves.” (Dr. Jacques Pauwels) Let It Happen Again Today, we are “fraternizing” and acting in solidarity Worldwide with the People of Palestine against the hegemonic agenda of the U.S. and it allies which are waging an all-out war against humanity. Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter defines the rights of soldiers and pilots who have the responsibility to Disobey Illegal Orders and Abandon the Battlefield Nuremberg Principle IV is not only a “Legal Text”, It is A Guiding Light in a Worldwide campaign against Acts of Genocide. (Principle IV was not available in 1914) Part II. Forthcoming *** Related Articles from our Archives https://telegra.ph/Fake-Victory-at-The-Hague-The-ICJ-Requires-Netanyahu-to-Prevent-and-Punish-Those-Responsible-for-the-Genocide-01-30 https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-icj-requires-netanyahu-to-prevent-and-punish-those-responsible-for-the-genocide/5847666
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    "Fake Victory at The Hague": The ICJ Requires Netanyahu to "Prevent" and "Punish" "Those Responsible for the Genocide"
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 10770 Ansichten
  • MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference.

    Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
    mmr vaccine media outbreaks feature
    Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

    Measles outbreaks are in the news again.

    In the U.S., local health departments and media reported about 16 cases of measles between December 2023 and January. The outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Georgia and Washington.

    In the United Kingdom, the UK Health Security Agency reported 209 cases between January and November 2023 and about 319 cases between October 2023 and the present.

    Media blamed international travel and declining vaccination rates among children as “probably” behind the outbreaks.

    But Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, told The Defender it doesn’t make sense to assume the unvaccinated are to blame. She said cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations with nearly 100% vaccination, such as college students.

    Dr. Paul Thomas, a retired pediatrician and author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years Paperback,” told The Defender some cases of measles are reported every year. Despite the hype around the recent outbreaks, he said, “There have not been any significant measles outbreaks in the U.S. for decades.”

    The largest recent national spike in measles cases occurred in 2019 when 1,274 cases were reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was the worst year for measles in the U.S. since 1992.

    Since 2019, the number of cases reported has been significantly lower: In 2020, there were 13 cases, in 2021, 49 cases, in 2022 there were 121 cases and in 2023, there were 56 cases. The post-2019 numbers also tend to be lower than the numbers from 2000-2018, which averaged around 200 per year.


    Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Measles is a contagious childhood viral disease characterized by a cough, runny nose and fever, followed by a generalized rash.

    It was declared to be eliminated in the U.S. in 2000 — meaning there was no continuous transmission.

    Mortality from measles in the U.S. declined significantly during the 20th century — 98% from 1900 to 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced — due to advances in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition, according to Physicians for Informed Consent.

    Since 2000, there have been only four measles deaths in the Americas — three in 2000 and one in 2022, according to a November 2023 CDC report.

    The overwhelming majority of the approximately 130,000 measles deaths annually occur in countries in the global south that have weak health infrastructures, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Those deaths, along with measles hospitalizations in the global north, are associated with vitamin A deficiency.

    “Measles can be deadly if a child does not have access to safe water and medical care,” Mumper said. “In developed countries, fatalities from measles are very rare.”

    Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status, Mumper said.

    “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine,” she added.

    Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the U.S. in 1963, most people contracted measles and gained lifetime immunity, and the number of deaths had dropped to 0.9 per 100,000 for children under age 10.

    The vaccines significantly reduced the number of reported measles cases, with efficacy rates that can be upwards of 95%, Thomas said. However, he added immunity from the vaccines wanes over time.

    “From a mechanistic standpoint, the lifelong 100% natural immunity comes when measles is caught through respiratory spread. Giving a vaccine by injection may be an inherently poor substitute for Mother Nature,” Mumper said.

    Approximately 83% of children globally received one dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine by their first birthday in 2022.

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

    Order Now

    Hotez, Offit blame the ‘anti-vaxers’ for measles outbreaks

    Although case numbers have declined in the U.S. since 2020, and the recently reported cases were either among adults or children who may be too young to have completed the MMR vaccine schedule, news reports about the outbreaks consistently link them to lower post-pandemic vaccination rates among kindergarteners.

    The CDC recommends two doses of the MMR vaccine, with the first dose at 12 to 15 months old and the second dose between ages 4 and 6.

    The agency reported that from the 2019-20 school year to the 2021-22 school year vaccination rates for state-required vaccines among kindergarten children declined from approximately 95% to approximately 93%, and the exemption rate increased to 3.0%.

    CDC data going back to 2011 show that rates typically vary from year-to-year, but consistently stay above 93%.

    Thomas said the drop has been minimal and “given the loss of immunity in both children and adults in the vaccinated, this minor reduction in MMR uptake by children is not going to make a difference [in infection rates].”

    Dr. Peter Hotez, a go-to “expert” for mainstream media on vaccines — and a vaccine developer and patent holder himself, who has repeatedly smeared vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” — told ABC and CBS News that he thought the sporadic outbreaks were likely a result of lowered vaccination rates and that they were going to get worse.

    “We’re just seeing now, this is the tip of the iceberg,” Hotez said. “We’re going to be seeing this in communities across the United States in the coming weeks and months because of the spillover of the U.S. anti-vaccine movement of childhood immunizations.”

    According to ABC — quoting Hotez, Dr. Paul Offit and the Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Gregory Poland — this is due to vaccine “misinformation” linking vaccines and autism, combined with the politicization of the COVID-19 vaccines, which Hotez said caused “an acceleration of anti-vaccine sentiments.”

    Hotez has been making these arguments for years, writing a New York Times op-ed in 2020 claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism and blaming unvaccinated people for infectious disease outbreaks.

    Offit said given the vaccine’s efficacy, it was “unconscionable” for parents to forgo vaccination for their children.

    But there is a significant and growing body of evidence suggesting the MMR vaccine can cause autism in certain susceptible children. That includes evidence that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers suppressed testimony by their own expert witness making the link, and evidence from whistleblower William Thompson, Ph.D., that the CDC covered up its own data showing a link between vaccines and autism.

    In a Substack post from 2022, Dr. Peter McCullough evaluated a study on the “Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States,” namely measles and pertussis.

    The study indicated that since measles was declared eradicated in 2000, there have been 18 published studies of 1,416 measles cases — 43.2% of the cases occurred in vaccinated people and no hospitalizations or deaths were reported.

    McCullough concluded:

    “Large fractions of ‘preventable disease outbreaks’ involving measles and pertussis occur because vaccines fail to provide adequate protection. Given the neuropsychiatric concerns over the MMR vaccine and the stochastic risk of allergic/immunologic reactions to any injection including components of (DTaP, Tdap) or MMR, the parental movement for vaccine choice is well justified.

    “For measles and pertussis, the vaccines convey imperfect protection and breakthrough infection (vaccine failure) should receive considerable ‘blame’ by public health researchers.”

    Mumper said the vaccine schedule has changed, lowering efficacy. “Vaccine efficacy was calculated to be ~94% when the first dose was given at 15 months,” she said.

    “Now babies are scheduled to get the first dose at 12 months (only 85% efficacy) and their second dose at kindergarten.”

    Mumper added, “People with different genotypes respond differently to MMR vaccines, so there is variable measles transmission depending on the individual’s immune response. Up to 10% of the population does not develop enough protective antibodies.”

    New outbreaks lead push for adults to get another MMR

    Derek Gatherer, Ph.D., a lecturer in biomedical and life sciences at Lancaster University who is funded by the U.K. government to study “vaccine hesitancy,” said the solution to the problem of measles outbreaks is more vaccination — for adults.

    Gatherer published a recent article in The Conversation blaming the vaccine-hesitant for the outbreaks. He argued that even adults who are already vaccinated should consider getting more MMR jabs.

    “Measles is the most infectious disease known to science — adults should consider getting another MMR vaccine,” he declared.

    Gatherer conceded that the measles risk to adults is extremely small, but said “adult MMR is still worthwhile as it goes beyond just protecting the person who receives the vaccination,” stopping asymptomatic infections from spreading.

    Thomas said it is not common to recommend booster shots to adults for illnesses they were vaccinated for as children. “However,” he added, “the pharmaceutical industry, backed by the CDC, has been looking at the adult population as an untapped resource to expand market share and penetration.”

    Reports of cases rising in the UK

    In the U.K., measles was considered eliminated in 2016, but it resurfaced in 2018.

    U.K. MMR vaccination rates average 85%, down from a peak of 88.6% in 2014, with some locations reporting rates as low as 74%.

    According to The Guardian, “Most experts agree that misinformation about the MMR jab is very unlikely to play a significant role in declining vaccination rates.

    “It is too easy to blame anti-vaccine sentiment for the measles outbreaks,” Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health told the paper. “Although some mistrust of vaccines may play a small part, research shows that parental vaccine confidence remains high.”

    Experts there pointed to pandemic disruptions in vaccination, concerns among Muslim and Jewish communities about the use of porcine gelatin in the vaccine, and also the fact that because the disease is so rare, people are less concerned about possible risks.

    England’s National Health Service is launching an MMR vaccination campaign, the BBC reported, contacting 4 million parents via text, email or letter to inform them their child has not had one or two doses of the vaccine.




    🚹 MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D + vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine." — Dr. Liz Mumper
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mmr-vaccine-media-measles-outbreaks
    MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference. Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. mmr vaccine media outbreaks feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Measles outbreaks are in the news again. In the U.S., local health departments and media reported about 16 cases of measles between December 2023 and January. The outbreaks occurred in Philadelphia, New Jersey, Georgia and Washington. In the United Kingdom, the UK Health Security Agency reported 209 cases between January and November 2023 and about 319 cases between October 2023 and the present. Media blamed international travel and declining vaccination rates among children as “probably” behind the outbreaks. But Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, told The Defender it doesn’t make sense to assume the unvaccinated are to blame. She said cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations with nearly 100% vaccination, such as college students. Dr. Paul Thomas, a retired pediatrician and author of “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan: Dr. Paul’s Safe and Effective Approach to Immunity and Health-from Pregnancy Through Your Child’s Teen Years Paperback,” told The Defender some cases of measles are reported every year. Despite the hype around the recent outbreaks, he said, “There have not been any significant measles outbreaks in the U.S. for decades.” The largest recent national spike in measles cases occurred in 2019 when 1,274 cases were reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It was the worst year for measles in the U.S. since 1992. Since 2019, the number of cases reported has been significantly lower: In 2020, there were 13 cases, in 2021, 49 cases, in 2022 there were 121 cases and in 2023, there were 56 cases. The post-2019 numbers also tend to be lower than the numbers from 2000-2018, which averaged around 200 per year. Credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Measles is a contagious childhood viral disease characterized by a cough, runny nose and fever, followed by a generalized rash. It was declared to be eliminated in the U.S. in 2000 — meaning there was no continuous transmission. Mortality from measles in the U.S. declined significantly during the 20th century — 98% from 1900 to 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced — due to advances in living conditions, healthcare and nutrition, according to Physicians for Informed Consent. Since 2000, there have been only four measles deaths in the Americas — three in 2000 and one in 2022, according to a November 2023 CDC report. The overwhelming majority of the approximately 130,000 measles deaths annually occur in countries in the global south that have weak health infrastructures, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Those deaths, along with measles hospitalizations in the global north, are associated with vitamin A deficiency. “Measles can be deadly if a child does not have access to safe water and medical care,” Mumper said. “In developed countries, fatalities from measles are very rare.” Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status, Mumper said. “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine,” she added. Prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the U.S. in 1963, most people contracted measles and gained lifetime immunity, and the number of deaths had dropped to 0.9 per 100,000 for children under age 10. The vaccines significantly reduced the number of reported measles cases, with efficacy rates that can be upwards of 95%, Thomas said. However, he added immunity from the vaccines wanes over time. “From a mechanistic standpoint, the lifelong 100% natural immunity comes when measles is caught through respiratory spread. Giving a vaccine by injection may be an inherently poor substitute for Mother Nature,” Mumper said. Approximately 83% of children globally received one dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine by their first birthday in 2022. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Hotez, Offit blame the ‘anti-vaxers’ for measles outbreaks Although case numbers have declined in the U.S. since 2020, and the recently reported cases were either among adults or children who may be too young to have completed the MMR vaccine schedule, news reports about the outbreaks consistently link them to lower post-pandemic vaccination rates among kindergarteners. The CDC recommends two doses of the MMR vaccine, with the first dose at 12 to 15 months old and the second dose between ages 4 and 6. The agency reported that from the 2019-20 school year to the 2021-22 school year vaccination rates for state-required vaccines among kindergarten children declined from approximately 95% to approximately 93%, and the exemption rate increased to 3.0%. CDC data going back to 2011 show that rates typically vary from year-to-year, but consistently stay above 93%. Thomas said the drop has been minimal and “given the loss of immunity in both children and adults in the vaccinated, this minor reduction in MMR uptake by children is not going to make a difference [in infection rates].” Dr. Peter Hotez, a go-to “expert” for mainstream media on vaccines — and a vaccine developer and patent holder himself, who has repeatedly smeared vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” — told ABC and CBS News that he thought the sporadic outbreaks were likely a result of lowered vaccination rates and that they were going to get worse. “We’re just seeing now, this is the tip of the iceberg,” Hotez said. “We’re going to be seeing this in communities across the United States in the coming weeks and months because of the spillover of the U.S. anti-vaccine movement of childhood immunizations.” According to ABC — quoting Hotez, Dr. Paul Offit and the Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Gregory Poland — this is due to vaccine “misinformation” linking vaccines and autism, combined with the politicization of the COVID-19 vaccines, which Hotez said caused “an acceleration of anti-vaccine sentiments.” Hotez has been making these arguments for years, writing a New York Times op-ed in 2020 claiming there is no link between vaccines and autism and blaming unvaccinated people for infectious disease outbreaks. Offit said given the vaccine’s efficacy, it was “unconscionable” for parents to forgo vaccination for their children. But there is a significant and growing body of evidence suggesting the MMR vaccine can cause autism in certain susceptible children. That includes evidence that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers suppressed testimony by their own expert witness making the link, and evidence from whistleblower William Thompson, Ph.D., that the CDC covered up its own data showing a link between vaccines and autism. In a Substack post from 2022, Dr. Peter McCullough evaluated a study on the “Association Between Vaccine Refusal and Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States,” namely measles and pertussis. The study indicated that since measles was declared eradicated in 2000, there have been 18 published studies of 1,416 measles cases — 43.2% of the cases occurred in vaccinated people and no hospitalizations or deaths were reported. McCullough concluded: “Large fractions of ‘preventable disease outbreaks’ involving measles and pertussis occur because vaccines fail to provide adequate protection. Given the neuropsychiatric concerns over the MMR vaccine and the stochastic risk of allergic/immunologic reactions to any injection including components of (DTaP, Tdap) or MMR, the parental movement for vaccine choice is well justified. “For measles and pertussis, the vaccines convey imperfect protection and breakthrough infection (vaccine failure) should receive considerable ‘blame’ by public health researchers.” Mumper said the vaccine schedule has changed, lowering efficacy. “Vaccine efficacy was calculated to be ~94% when the first dose was given at 15 months,” she said. “Now babies are scheduled to get the first dose at 12 months (only 85% efficacy) and their second dose at kindergarten.” Mumper added, “People with different genotypes respond differently to MMR vaccines, so there is variable measles transmission depending on the individual’s immune response. Up to 10% of the population does not develop enough protective antibodies.” New outbreaks lead push for adults to get another MMR Derek Gatherer, Ph.D., a lecturer in biomedical and life sciences at Lancaster University who is funded by the U.K. government to study “vaccine hesitancy,” said the solution to the problem of measles outbreaks is more vaccination — for adults. Gatherer published a recent article in The Conversation blaming the vaccine-hesitant for the outbreaks. He argued that even adults who are already vaccinated should consider getting more MMR jabs. “Measles is the most infectious disease known to science — adults should consider getting another MMR vaccine,” he declared. Gatherer conceded that the measles risk to adults is extremely small, but said “adult MMR is still worthwhile as it goes beyond just protecting the person who receives the vaccination,” stopping asymptomatic infections from spreading. Thomas said it is not common to recommend booster shots to adults for illnesses they were vaccinated for as children. “However,” he added, “the pharmaceutical industry, backed by the CDC, has been looking at the adult population as an untapped resource to expand market share and penetration.” Reports of cases rising in the UK In the U.K., measles was considered eliminated in 2016, but it resurfaced in 2018. U.K. MMR vaccination rates average 85%, down from a peak of 88.6% in 2014, with some locations reporting rates as low as 74%. According to The Guardian, “Most experts agree that misinformation about the MMR jab is very unlikely to play a significant role in declining vaccination rates. “It is too easy to blame anti-vaccine sentiment for the measles outbreaks,” Helen Bedford, professor of children’s health at the University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health told the paper. “Although some mistrust of vaccines may play a small part, research shows that parental vaccine confidence remains high.” Experts there pointed to pandemic disruptions in vaccination, concerns among Muslim and Jewish communities about the use of porcine gelatin in the vaccine, and also the fact that because the disease is so rare, people are less concerned about possible risks. England’s National Health Service is launching an MMR vaccination campaign, the BBC reported, contacting 4 million parents via text, email or letter to inform them their child has not had one or two doses of the vaccine. 🚹 MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D + vitamin C are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine." — Dr. Liz Mumper https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/mmr-vaccine-media-measles-outbreaks
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
    As major news outlets linked reports of measles cases in the U.S. and U.K. to declining vaccine rates, experts told The Defender that case numbers in the U.S. have been extremely low for decades and the very minor variations in vaccination rates do not make a difference.
    Angry
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 9167 Ansichten
  • #EnforceArticle55
    The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55.

    James Roguski

    EnforceArticle55

    Share

    Leave a comment

    Please watch the video below and share it far and wide…



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4Iyluleuw


    The World Health Assembly is made up of the 194 member nations and it is the governing body of the World Health Organization.

    As a sovereign nation that is a member of the World Health Assembly and also a party to the International Health Regulations, it is the obligation of the United States to demand that the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly obey their own rules.

    Every one of the 193 other member nations has the same responsibility.

    These rules also apply to Liechtenstein and the Holy See (the Vatican) which are not members of the World Health Assembly, but are parties to the International Health Regulations.


    ARTICLE 55:

    Article 55 of the International Health Organization clearly states that the Director-General shall (which means that he must) communicate any proposed amendments at least 4 months in advance of the World Health Assembly at which they are to be considered.


    International Health Regulations (2005):

    https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf


    WHA75(9):

    (f) to request the WGIHR to establish a programme of work, consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments, for consideration by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations (2005);

    https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75%289%29-en.pdf


    EB150(3):

    Decided:

    (2) to urge Member States to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), with the understanding that this would not lead to reopening the entire instrument for renegotiation. Such amendments should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner.

    Sixth meeting, 26 January 2022 EB150/SR/6

    https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150(3)-en.pdf

    I (and others around the world) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to obtain any and all communications from the WHO’s Director-General regarding any proposed amendments to be considered at the 77th World Health Assembly.

    As of January 28, 2024, no such communications have been made available.

    Wherever you live on earth, please help by submitting Freedom of Information requests in your country:

    Freedom of Information Requests

    Freedom of Information Requests
    Please watch the video below…

    Read full story

    The World Health Assembly also needs to follow the rules regarding the manner in which they vote:

    Follow The Damn Rules

    Follow The Damn Rules
    Read full story

    LEARN MORE…

    Informed-Dissent.com

    StopTheGlobalAgenda.com

    ThePeoplesDeclaration.com

    ExitTheWHO.org

    ExitTheWHO.com

    RejectTheAmendments.com

    StopTheAmendments.com

    StopTheWHO.com

    ScrewTheWHO.com

    PreventGenocide2030.org

    MaskCharade.com

    Under Development…

    DemandHealthFreedom.com

    DemandHealthFreedom.org

    HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com

    James Roguski

    The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.

    If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

    JamesRoguski.com

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

    310-619-3055

    All content is free to all readers.

    All support is deeply appreciated.

    CLICK HERE TO DONATE

    Share

    Leave a comment


    https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/enforcearticle55
    #EnforceArticle55 The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55. James Roguski EnforceArticle55 Share Leave a comment Please watch the video below and share it far and wide… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4Iyluleuw The World Health Assembly is made up of the 194 member nations and it is the governing body of the World Health Organization. As a sovereign nation that is a member of the World Health Assembly and also a party to the International Health Regulations, it is the obligation of the United States to demand that the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly obey their own rules. Every one of the 193 other member nations has the same responsibility. These rules also apply to Liechtenstein and the Holy See (the Vatican) which are not members of the World Health Assembly, but are parties to the International Health Regulations. ARTICLE 55: Article 55 of the International Health Organization clearly states that the Director-General shall (which means that he must) communicate any proposed amendments at least 4 months in advance of the World Health Assembly at which they are to be considered. International Health Regulations (2005): https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf WHA75(9): (f) to request the WGIHR to establish a programme of work, consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments, for consideration by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations (2005); https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75%289%29-en.pdf EB150(3): Decided: (2) to urge Member States to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), with the understanding that this would not lead to reopening the entire instrument for renegotiation. Such amendments should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner. Sixth meeting, 26 January 2022 EB150/SR/6 https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150(3)-en.pdf I (and others around the world) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to obtain any and all communications from the WHO’s Director-General regarding any proposed amendments to be considered at the 77th World Health Assembly. As of January 28, 2024, no such communications have been made available. Wherever you live on earth, please help by submitting Freedom of Information requests in your country: Freedom of Information Requests Freedom of Information Requests Please watch the video below… Read full story The World Health Assembly also needs to follow the rules regarding the manner in which they vote: Follow The Damn Rules Follow The Damn Rules Read full story LEARN MORE… Informed-Dissent.com StopTheGlobalAgenda.com ThePeoplesDeclaration.com ExitTheWHO.org ExitTheWHO.com RejectTheAmendments.com StopTheAmendments.com StopTheWHO.com ScrewTheWHO.com PreventGenocide2030.org MaskCharade.com Under Development… DemandHealthFreedom.com DemandHealthFreedom.org HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com James Roguski The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime. JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive 310-619-3055 All content is free to all readers. All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/enforcearticle55
    JAMESROGUSKI.SUBSTACK.COM
    #EnforceArticle55
    The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 1 Anteile 3669 Ansichten
  • More big news!

    The WHO has missed their deadline to submit proposed amendments to the IHR. By continuing with their negotiations, they are in direct violation of Article 55 of the IHR, meaning they are breaking their own law.

    Every country is completely within its rights to demand these negotiations come to a complete halt as they are now null and void.

    Read more below:

    https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/enforcearticle55

    Follow @zeeemedia
    Website | X | Instagram | Rumble


    #EnforceArticle55
    The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55.

    James Roguski

    #EnforceArticle55

    Share

    Leave a comment

    Please watch the video below and share it far and wide…



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4Iyluleuw


    The World Health Assembly is made up of the 194 member nations and it is the governing body of the World Health Organization.

    As a sovereign nation that is a member of the World Health Assembly and also a party to the International Health Regulations, it is the obligation of the United States to demand that the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly obey their own rules.

    Every one of the 193 other member nations has the same responsibility.

    These rules also apply to Liechtenstein and the Holy See (the Vatican) which are not members of the World Health Assembly, but are parties to the International Health Regulations.


    ARTICLE 55:

    Article 55 of the International Health Organization clearly states that the Director-General shall (which means that he must) communicate any proposed amendments at least 4 months in advance of the World Health Assembly at which they are to be considered.


    International Health Regulations (2005):

    https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf


    WHA75(9):

    (f) to request the WGIHR to establish a programme of work, consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments, for consideration by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations (2005);

    https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75%289%29-en.pdf


    EB150(3):

    Decided:

    (2) to urge Member States to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), with the understanding that this would not lead to reopening the entire instrument for renegotiation. Such amendments should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner.

    Sixth meeting, 26 January 2022 EB150/SR/6

    https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150(3)-en.pdf

    I (and others around the world) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to obtain any and all communications from the WHO’s Director-General regarding any proposed amendments to be considered at the 77th World Health Assembly.

    As of January 28, 2024, no such communications have been made available.

    Wherever you live on earth, please help by submitting Freedom of Information requests in your country:

    Freedom of Information Requests

    Freedom of Information Requests
    Please watch the video below…

    Read full story

    The World Health Assembly also needs to follow the rules regarding the manner in which they vote:

    Follow The Damn Rules

    Follow The Damn Rules
    Read full story

    LEARN MORE…

    Informed-Dissent.com

    StopTheGlobalAgenda.com

    ThePeoplesDeclaration.com

    ExitTheWHO.org

    ExitTheWHO.com

    RejectTheAmendments.com

    StopTheAmendments.com

    StopTheWHO.com

    ScrewTheWHO.com

    PreventGenocide2030.org

    MaskCharade.com

    Under Development…

    DemandHealthFreedom.com

    DemandHealthFreedom.org

    HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com

    James Roguski

    The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly.

    If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime.

    JamesRoguski.com

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

    310-619-3055

    All content is free to all readers.

    All support is deeply appreciated.

    CLICK HERE TO DONATE

    Share

    Leave a comment
    More big news! The WHO has missed their deadline to submit proposed amendments to the IHR. By continuing with their negotiations, they are in direct violation of Article 55 of the IHR, meaning they are breaking their own law. Every country is completely within its rights to demand these negotiations come to a complete halt as they are now null and void. Read more below: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/enforcearticle55 Follow @zeeemedia Website | X | Instagram | Rumble #EnforceArticle55 The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55. James Roguski #EnforceArticle55 Share Leave a comment Please watch the video below and share it far and wide… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC4Iyluleuw The World Health Assembly is made up of the 194 member nations and it is the governing body of the World Health Organization. As a sovereign nation that is a member of the World Health Assembly and also a party to the International Health Regulations, it is the obligation of the United States to demand that the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly obey their own rules. Every one of the 193 other member nations has the same responsibility. These rules also apply to Liechtenstein and the Holy See (the Vatican) which are not members of the World Health Assembly, but are parties to the International Health Regulations. ARTICLE 55: Article 55 of the International Health Organization clearly states that the Director-General shall (which means that he must) communicate any proposed amendments at least 4 months in advance of the World Health Assembly at which they are to be considered. International Health Regulations (2005): https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/246107/9789241580496-eng.pdf WHA75(9): (f) to request the WGIHR to establish a programme of work, consistent with decision EB150(3), and taking into consideration the report of the IHR Review Committee, to propose a package of targeted amendments, for consideration by the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly, in accordance with Article 55 of the International Health Regulations (2005); https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75%289%29-en.pdf EB150(3): Decided: (2) to urge Member States to take all appropriate measures to consider potential amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005), with the understanding that this would not lead to reopening the entire instrument for renegotiation. Such amendments should be limited in scope and address specific and clearly identified issues, challenges, including equity, technological or other developments, or gaps that could not effectively be addressed otherwise but are critical to supporting effective implementation and compliance of the International Health Regulations (2005), and their universal application for the protection of all people of the world from the international spread of disease in an equitable manner. Sixth meeting, 26 January 2022 EB150/SR/6 https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB150/B150(3)-en.pdf I (and others around the world) have submitted Freedom of Information requests to obtain any and all communications from the WHO’s Director-General regarding any proposed amendments to be considered at the 77th World Health Assembly. As of January 28, 2024, no such communications have been made available. Wherever you live on earth, please help by submitting Freedom of Information requests in your country: Freedom of Information Requests Freedom of Information Requests Please watch the video below… Read full story The World Health Assembly also needs to follow the rules regarding the manner in which they vote: Follow The Damn Rules Follow The Damn Rules Read full story LEARN MORE… Informed-Dissent.com StopTheGlobalAgenda.com ThePeoplesDeclaration.com ExitTheWHO.org ExitTheWHO.com RejectTheAmendments.com StopTheAmendments.com StopTheWHO.com ScrewTheWHO.com PreventGenocide2030.org MaskCharade.com Under Development… DemandHealthFreedom.com DemandHealthFreedom.org HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com James Roguski The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime. JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive 310-619-3055 All content is free to all readers. All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment
    JAMESROGUSKI.SUBSTACK.COM
    #EnforceArticle55
    The deadline (January 27, 2024) to submit proposed amendments has passed. It is the responsibility of every sovereign member nation of the WHO to defend the rule of law and enforce Article 55.
    Like
    1
    0 Kommentare 0 Anteile 4010 Ansichten
Suchergebnis