The WHO Pandemic Agreement: A Guide
By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh March 22, 2024 Government, Society 30 minute read
The World Health Organization (WHO) and its 194 Member States have been engaged for over two years in the development of two ‘instruments’ or agreements with the intent of radically changing the way pandemics and other health emergencies are managed.

One, consisting of draft amendments to the existing International health Regulations (IHR), seeks to change the current IHR non-binding recommendations into requirements or binding recommendations, by having countries “undertake” to implement those given by the WHO in future declared health emergencies. It covers all ‘public health emergencies of international concern’ (PHEIC), with a single person, the WHO Director-General (DG) determining what a PHEIC is, where it extends, and when it ends. It specifies mandated vaccines, border closures, and other directives understood as lockdowns among the requirements the DG can impose. It is discussed further elsewhere and still under negotiation in Geneva.

A second document, previously known as the (draft) Pandemic Treaty, then Pandemic Accord, and more recently the Pandemic Agreement, seeks to specify governance, supply chains, and various other interventions aimed at preventing, preparing for, and responding to, pandemics (pandemic prevention, preparedness and response – PPPR). It is currently being negotiated by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).

Both texts will be subject to a vote at the May 2024 World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva, Switzerland. These votes are intended, by those promoting these projects, to bring governance of future multi-country healthcare emergencies (or threats thereof) under the WHO umbrella.

The latest version of the draft Pandemic Agreement (here forth the ‘Agreement’) was released on 7th March 2024. However, it is still being negotiated by various committees comprising representatives of Member States and other interested entities. It has been through multiple iterations over two years, and looks like it. With the teeth of the pandemic response proposals in the IHR, the Agreement looks increasingly irrelevant, or at least unsure of its purpose, picking up bits and pieces in a half-hearted way that the IHR amendments do not, or cannot, include. However, as discussed below, it is far from irrelevant.

Historical Perspective

These aim to increase the centralization of decision-making within the WHO as the “directing and coordinating authority.” This terminology comes from the WHO’s 1946 Constitution, developed in the aftermath of the Second World War as the world faced the outcomes of European fascism and the similar approaches widely imposed through colonialist regimes. The WHO would support emerging countries, with rapidly expanding and poorly resourced populations struggling under high disease burdens, and coordinate some areas of international support as these sovereign countries requested it. The emphasis of action was on coordinating rather than directing.

In the 80 years prior to the WHO’s existence, international public health had grown within a more directive mindset, with a series of meetings by colonial and slave-owning powers from 1851 to manage pandemics, culminating in the inauguration of the Office Internationale d’Hygiene Publique in Paris in 1907, and later the League of Nations Health Office. World powers imposed health dictates on those less powerful, in other parts of the world and increasingly on their own population through the eugenics movement and similar approaches. Public health would direct, for the greater good, as a tool of those who wish to direct the lives of others.

The WHO, governed by the WHA, was to be very different. Newly independent States and their former colonial masters were ostensibly on an equal footing within the WHA (one country – one vote), and the WHO’s work overall was to be an example of how human rights could dominate the way society works. The model for international public health, as exemplified in the Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978, was to be horizontal rather than vertical, with communities and countries in the driving seat.

With the evolution of the WHO in recent decades from a core funding model (countries give money, the WHO decides under the WHA guidance how to spend it) to a model based on specified funding (funders, both public and increasingly private, instruct the WHO on how to spend it), the WHO has inevitably changed to become a public-private partnership required to serve the interests of funders rather than populations.

As most funding comes from a few countries with major Pharma industrial bases, or private investors and corporations in the same industry, the WHO has been required to emphasize the use of pharmaceuticals and downplay evidence and knowledge where these clash (if it wants to keep all its staff funded). It is helpful to view the draft Agreement, and the IHR amendments, in this context.

Why May 2024?

The WHO, together with the World Bank, G20, and other institutions have been emphasizing the urgency of putting the new pandemic instruments in place earnestly, before the ‘next pandemic.’ This is based on claims that the world was unprepared for Covid-19, and that the economic and health harm would be somehow avoidable if we had these agreements in place.

They emphasize, contrary to evidence that Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) origins involve laboratory manipulation, that the main threats we face are natural, and that these are increasing exponentially and present an “existential” threat to humanity. The data on which the WHO, the World Bank, and G20 base these claims demonstrates the contrary, with reported natural outbreaks having increased as detection technologies have developed, but reducing in mortality rate, and in numbers, over the past 10 to 20 years..

A paper cited by the World Bank to justify urgency and quoted as suggesting a 3x increase in risk in the coming decade actually suggests that a Covid-19-like event would occur roughly every 129 years, and a Spanish-flu repetition every 292 to 877 years. Such predictions are unable to take into account the rapidly changing nature of medicine and improved sanitation and nutrition (most deaths from Spanish flu would not have occurred if modern antibiotics had been available), and so may still overestimate risk. Similarly, the WHO’s own priority disease list for new outbreaks only includes two diseases of proven natural origin that have over 1,000 historical deaths attributed to them. It is well demonstrated that the risk and expected burden of pandemics is misrepresented by major international agencies in current discussions.

The urgency for May 2024 is clearly therefore inadequately supported, firstly because neither the WHO nor others have demonstrated how the harms accrued through Covid-19 would be reduced through the measures proposed, and secondly because the burden and risk is misrepresented. In this context, the state of the Agreement is clearly not where it should be as a draft international legally binding agreement intended to impose considerable financial and other obligations on States and populations.

This is particularly problematic as the proposed expenditure; the proposed budget is over $31 billion per year, with over $10 billion more on other One Health activities. Much of this will have to be diverted from addressing other diseases burdens that impose far greater burden. This trade-off, essential to understand in public health policy development, has not yet been clearly addressed by the WHO.

The WHO DG stated recently that the WHO does not want the power to impose vaccine mandates or lockdowns on anyone, and does not want this. This begs the question of why either of the current WHO pandemic instruments is being proposed, both as legally binding documents. The current IHR (2005) already sets out such approaches as recommendations the DG can make, and there is nothing non-mandatory that countries cannot do now without pushing new treaty-like mechanisms through a vote in Geneva.

Based on the DG’s claims, they are essentially redundant, and what new non-mandatory clauses they contain, as set out below, are certainly not urgent. Clauses that are mandatory (Member States “shall”) must be considered within national decision-making contexts and appear against the WHO’s stated intent.

Common sense would suggest that the Agreement, and the accompanying IHR amendments, be properly thought through before Member States commit. The WHO has already abandoned the legal requirement for a 4-month review time for the IHR amendments (Article 55.2 IHR), which are also still under negotiation just 2 months before the WHA deadline. The Agreement should also have at least such a period for States to properly consider whether to agree – treaties normally take many years to develop and negotiate and no valid arguments have been put forward as to why these should be different.

The Covid-19 response resulted in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from those of lower income to the very wealthy few, completely contrary to the way in which the WHO was intended to affect human society. A considerable portion of these pandemic profits went to current sponsors of the WHO, and these same corporate entities and investors are set to further benefit from the new pandemic agreements. As written, the Pandemic Agreement risks entrenching such centralization and profit-taking, and the accompanying unprecedented restrictions on human rights and freedoms, as a public health norm.

To continue with a clearly flawed agreement simply because of a previously set deadline, when no clear population benefit is articulated and no true urgency demonstrated, would therefore be a major step backward in international public health. Basic principles of proportionality, human agency, and community empowerment, essential for health and human rights outcomes, are missing or paid lip-service. The WHO clearly wishes to increase its funding and show it is ‘doing something,’ but must first articulate why the voluntary provisions of the current IHR are insufficient. It is hoped that by systematically reviewing some key clauses of the agreement here, it will become clear why a rethink of the whole approach is necessary. The full text is found below.

The commentary below concentrates on selected draft provisions of the latest publicly available version of the draft agreement that seem to be unclear or potentially problematic. Much of the remaining text is essentially pointless as it reiterates vague intentions to be found in other documents or activities which countries normally undertake in the course of running health services, and have no place in a focused legally-binding international agreement.

REVISED Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. 7th March, 2024

Preamble

Recognizing that the World Health Organization…is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work.

This is inconsistent with a recent statement by the WHO DG that the WHO has no interest or intent to direct country health responses. To reiterate it here suggests that the DG is not representing the true position regarding the Agreement. “Directing authority” is however in line with the proposed IHR Amendments (and the WHO’s Constitution), under which countries will “undertake” ahead of time to follow the DG’s recommendations (which thereby become instructions). As the HR amendments make clear, this is intended to apply even to a perceived threat rather than actual harm.

Recalling the constitution of the World Health Organization…highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

This statement recalls fundamental understandings of public health, and is of importance here as it raises the question of why the WHO did not strongly condemn prolonged school closures, workplace closures, and other impoverishing policies during the Covid-19 response. In 2019, WHO made clear that these dangers should prevent actions we now call ‘lockdowns’ from being imposed.

Deeply concerned by the gross inequities at national and international levels that hindered timely and equitable access to medical and other Covid-19 pandemic-related products, and the serious shortcomings in pandemic preparedness.

In terms of health equity (as distinct from commodity of ‘vaccine’ equity), inequity in the Covid-19 response was not in failing to provide a vaccine against former variants to immune, young people in low-income countries who were at far higher risk from endemic diseases, but in the disproportionate harm to them of uniformly-imposed NPIs that reduced current and future income and basic healthcare, as was noted by the WHO in 2019 Pandemic Influenza recommendations. The failure of the text to recognize this suggests that lessons from Covid-19 have not informed this draft Agreement. The WHO has not yet demonstrated how pandemic ‘preparedness,’ in the terms they use below, would have reduced impact, given that there is poor correlation between strictness or speed of response and eventual outcomes.

Reiterating the need to work towards…an equitable approach to mitigate the risk that pandemics exacerbate existing inequities in access to health services,

As above – in the past century, the issue of inequity has been most pronounced in pandemic response, rather than the impact of the virus itself (excluding the physiological variation in risk). Most recorded deaths from acute pandemics, since the Spanish flu, were during Covid-19, in which the virus hit mainly sick elderly, but response impacted working-age adults and children heavily and will continue to have effect, due to increased poverty and debt; reduced education and child marriage, in future generations.

These have disproportionately affected lower-income people, and particularly women. The lack of recognition of this in this document, though they are recognized by the World Bank and UN agencies elsewhere, must raise real questions on whether this Agreement has been thoroughly thought through, and the process of development been sufficiently inclusive and objective.

Chapter I. Introduction

Article 1. Use of terms

(i) “pathogen with pandemic potential” means any pathogen that has been identified to infect a human and that is: novel (not yet characterized) or known (including a variant of a known pathogen), potentially highly transmissible and/or highly virulent with the potential to cause a public health emergency of international concern.

This provides a very wide scope to alter provisions. Any pathogen that can infect humans and is potentially highly transmissible or virulent, though yet uncharacterized means virtually any coronavirus, influenza virus, or a plethora of other relatively common pathogen groups. The IHR Amendments intend that the DG alone can make this call, over the advice of others, as occurred with monkeypox in 2022.

(j) “persons in vulnerable situations” means individuals, groups or communities with a disproportionate increased risk of infection, severity, disease or mortality.

This is a good definition – in Covid-19 context, would mean the sick elderly, and so is relevant to targeting a response.

“Universal health coverage” means that all people have access to the full range of quality health services they need, when and where they need them, without financial hardship.

While the general UHC concept is good, it is time a sensible (rather than patently silly) definition was adopted. Society cannot afford the full range of possible interventions and remedies for all, and clearly there is a scale of cost vs benefit that prioritizes certain ones over others. Sensible definitions make action more likely, and inaction harder to justify. One could argue that none should have the full range until all have good basic care, but clearly the earth will not support ‘the full range’ for 8 billion people.

Article 2. Objective

This Agreement is specifically for pandemics (a poorly defined term but essentially a pathogen that spreads rapidly across national borders). In contrast, the IHR amendments accompanying it are broader in scope – for any public health emergencies of international concern.

Article 3. Principles

2. the sovereign right of States to adopt, legislate and implement legislation

The amendments to the IHR require States to undertake to follow WHO instructions ahead of time, before such instruction and context are known. These two documents must be understood, as noted later in the Agreement draft, as complementary.

3. equity as the goal and outcome of pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, ensuring the absence of unfair, avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people.

This definition of equity here needs clarification. In the pandemic context, the WHO emphasized commodity (vaccine) equity during the Covid-19 response. Elimination of differences implied equal access to Covid-19 vaccines in countries with large aging, obese highly vulnerable populations (e.g. the USA or Italy), and those with young populations at minimal risk and with far more pressing health priorities (e.g. Niger or Uganda).

Alternatively, but equally damaging, equal access to different age groups within a country when the risk-benefit ratio is clearly greatly different. This promotes worse health outcomes by diverting resources from where they are most useful, as it ignores heterogeneity of risk. Again, an adult approach is required in international agreements, rather than feel-good sentences, if they are going to have a positive impact.

5. …a more equitable and better prepared world to prevent, respond to and recover from pandemics

As with ‘3’ above, this raises a fundamental problem: What if health equity demands that some populations divert resources to childhood nutrition and endemic diseases rather than the latest pandemic, as these are likely of far higher burden to many younger but lower-income populations? This would not be equity in the definition implied here, but would clearly lead to better and more equal health outcomes.

The WHO must decide whether it is about uniform action, or minimizing poor health, as these are clearly very different. They are the difference between the WHO’s commodity equity, and true health equity.

Chapter II. The world together equitably: achieving equity in, for and through pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

Equity in health should imply a reasonably equal chance of overcoming or avoiding preventable sickness. The vast majority of sickness and death is due to either non-communicable diseases often related to lifestyle, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus, undernutrition in childhood, and endemic infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Achieving health equity would primarily mean addressing these.

In this chapter of the draft Pandemic Agreement, equity is used to imply equal access to specific health commodities, particularly vaccines, for intermittent health emergencies, although these exert a small fraction of the burden of other diseases. It is, specifically, commodity-equity, and not geared to equalizing overall health burden but to enabling centrally-coordinated homogenous responses to unusual events.

Article 4. Pandemic prevention and surveillance

2. The Parties shall undertake to cooperate:

(b) in support of…initiatives aimed at preventing pandemics, in particular those that improve surveillance, early warning and risk assessment; .…and identify settings and activities presenting a risk of emergence and re-emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential.

(c-h) [Paragraphs on water and sanitation, infection control, strengthening of biosafety, surveillance and prevention of vector-born diseases, and addressing antimicrobial resistance.]

The WHO intends the Agreement to have force under international law. Therefore, countries are undertaking to put themselves under force of international law in regards to complying with the agreement’s stipulations.

The provisions under this long article mostly cover general health stuff that countries try to do anyway. The difference will be that countries will be assessed on progress. Assessment can be fine if in context, less fine if it consists of entitled ‘experts’ from wealthy countries with little local knowledge or context. Perhaps such compliance is best left to national authorities, who are more in use with local needs and priorities. The justification for the international bureaucracy being built to support this, while fun for those involved, is unclear and will divert resources from actual health work.

6. The Conference of the Parties may adopt, as necessary, guidelines, recommendations and standards, including in relation to pandemic prevention capacities, to support the implementation of this Article.

Here and later, the COP is invoked as a vehicle to decide on what will actually be done. The rules are explained later (Articles 21-23). While allowing more time is sensible, it begs the question of why it is not better to wait and discuss what is needed in the current INB process, before committing to a legally-binding agreement. This current article says nothing not already covered by the IHR2005 or other ongoing programs.

Article 5. One Health approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response

Nothing specific or new in this article. It seems redundant (it is advocating a holistic approach mentioned elsewhere) and so presumably is just to get the term ‘One Health’ into the agreement. (One could ask, why bother?)

Some mainstream definitions of One Health (e.g. Lancet) consider that it means non-human species are on a par with humans in terms of rights and importance. If this is meant here, clearly most Member States would disagree. So we may assume that it is just words to keep someone happy (a little childish in an international document, but the term ‘One Health’ has been trending, like ‘equity,’ as if the concept of holistic approaches to public health were new).

Article 6. Preparedness, health system resilience and recovery

2. Each Party commits…[to] :

(a) routine and essential health services during pandemics with a focus on primary health care, routine immunization and mental health care, and with particular attention to persons in vulnerable situations

(b) developing, strengthening and maintaining health infrastructure

(c) developing post-pandemic health system recovery strategies

(d) developing, strengthening and maintaining: health information systems

This is good, and (a) seems to require avoidance of lockdowns (which inevitably cause the harms listed). Unfortunately other WHO documents lead one to assume this is not the intent…It does appear therefore that this is simply another list of fairly non-specific feel-good measures that have no useful place in a new legally-binding agreement, and which most countries are already undertaking.

(e) promoting the use of social and behavioural sciences, risk communication and community engagement for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

This requires clarification, as the use of behavioral science during the Covid-19 response involved deliberate inducement of fear to promote behaviors that people would not otherwise follow (e.g. Spi-B). It is essential here that the document clarifies how behavioral science should be used ethically in healthcare. Otherwise, this is also a quite meaningless provision.

Article 7. Health and care workforce

This long Article discusses health workforce, training, retention, non-discrimination, stigma, bias, adequate remuneration, and other standard provisions for workplaces. It is unclear why it is included in a legally binding pandemic agreement, except for:

4. [The Parties]…shall invest in establishing, sustaining, coordinating and mobilizing a skilled and trained multidisciplinary global public health emergency workforce…Parties having established emergency health teams should inform WHO thereof and make best efforts to respond to requests for deployment…

Emergency health teams established (within capacity etc.) – are something countries already do, when they have capacity. There is no reason to have this as a legally-binding instrument, and clearly no urgency to do so.

Article 8. Preparedness monitoring and functional reviews

1. The Parties shall, building on existing and relevant tools, develop and implement an inclusive, transparent, effective and efficient pandemic prevention, preparedness and response monitoring and evaluation system.

2. Each Party shall assess, every five years, with technical support from the WHO Secretariat upon request, the functioning and readiness of, and gaps in, its pandemic prevention, preparedness and response capacity, based on the relevant tools and guidelines developed by WHO in partnership with relevant organizations at international, regional and sub-regional levels.

Note that this is being required of countries that are already struggling to implement monitoring systems for major endemic diseases, including tuberculosis, malaria, HIV, and nutritional deficiencies. They will be legally bound to divert resources to pandemic prevention. While there is some overlap, it will inevitably divert resources from currently underfunded programs for diseases of far higher local burdens, and so (not theoretically, but inevitably) raise mortality. Poor countries are being required to put resources into problems deemed significant by richer countries.

Article 9. Research and development

Various general provisions about undertaking background research that countries are generally doing anyway, but with an ’emerging disease’ slant. Again, the INB fails to justify why this diversion of resources from researching greater disease burdens should occur in all countries (why not just those with excess resources?).

Article 10. Sustainable and geographically diversified production

Mostly non-binding but suggested cooperation on making pandemic-related products available, including support for manufacturing in “inter-pandemic times” (a fascinating rendering of ‘normal’), when they would only be viable through subsidies. Much of this is probably unimplementable, as it would not be practical to maintain facilities in most or all countries on stand-by for rare events, at cost of resources otherwise useful for other priorities. The desire to increase production in ‘developing’ countries will face major barriers and costs in terms of maintaining quality of production, particularly as many products will have limited use outside of rare outbreak situations.

Article 11. Transfer of technology and know-how

This article, always problematic for large pharmaceutical corporations sponsoring much WHO outbreak activities, is now watered down to weak requirements to ‘consider,’ promote,’ provide, within capabilities’ etc.

Article 12. Access and benefit sharing

This Article is intended to establish the WHO Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System (PABS System). PABS is intended to “ensure rapid, systematic and timely access to biological materials of pathogens with pandemic potential and the genetic sequence data.” This system is of potential high relevance and needs to be interpreted in the context that SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing the recent Covid-19 outbreak, was highly likely to have escaped from a laboratory. PABS is intended to expand the laboratory storage, transport, and handling of such viruses, under the oversight of the WHO, an organization outside of national jurisdiction with no significant direct experience in handling biological materials.

3. When a Party has access to a pathogen [it shall]:

(a) share with WHO any pathogen sequence information as soon as it is available to the Party;

(b) as soon as biological materials are available to the Party, provide the materials to one or more laboratories and/or biorepositories participating in WHO-coordinated laboratory networks (CLNs),

Subsequent clauses state that benefits will be shared, and seek to prevent recipient laboratories from patenting materials received from other countries. This has been a major concern of low-and middle-income countries previously, who perceive that institutions in wealthy countries patent and benefit from materials derived from less-wealthy populations. It remains to be seen whether provisions here will be sufficient to address this.

The article then becomes yet more concerning:

6. WHO shall conclude legally binding standard PABS contracts with manufacturers to provide the following, taking into account the size, nature and capacities of the manufacturer:

(a) annual monetary contributions to support the PABS System and relevant capacities in countries; the determination of the annual amount, use, and approach for monitoring and accountability, shall be finalized by the Parties;

(b) real-time contributions of relevant diagnostics, therapeutics or vaccines produced by the manufacturer, 10% free of charge and 10% at not-for-profit prices during public health emergencies of international concern or pandemics, …

It is clearly intended that the WHO becomes directly involved in setting up legally binding manufacturing contracts, despite the WHO being outside of national jurisdictional oversight, within the territories of Member States. The PABS system, and therefore its staff and dependent entities, are also to be supported in part by funds from the manufacturers whom they are supposed to be managing. The income of the organization will be dependent on maintaining positive relationships with these private entities in a similar way in which many national regulatory agencies are dependent upon funds from pharmaceutical companies whom their staff ostensibly regulate. In this case, the regulator will be even further removed from public oversight.

The clause on 10% (why 10?) products being free of charge, and similar at cost, while ensuring lower-priced commodities irrespective of actual need (the outbreak may be confined to wealthy countries). The same entity, the WHO, will determine whether the triggering emergency exists, determine the response, and manage the contracts to provide the commodities, without direct jurisdictional oversight regarding the potential for corruption or conflict of interest. It is a remarkable system to suggest, irrespective of political or regulatory environment.

8. The Parties shall cooperate…public financing of research and development, prepurchase agreements, or regulatory procedures, to encourage and facilitate as many manufacturers as possible to enter into standard PABS contracts as early as possible.

The article envisions that public funding will be used to build the process, ensuring essentially no-risk private profit.

10. To support operationalization of the PABS System, WHO shall…make such contracts public, while respecting commercial confidentiality.

The public may know whom contracts are made with, but not all details of the contracts. There will therefore be no independent oversight of the clauses agreed between the WHO, a body outside of national jurisdiction and dependent of commercial companies for funding some of its work and salaries, and these same companies, on ‘needs’ that the WHO itself will have sole authority, under the proposed amendments to the IHR, to determine.

The Article further states that the WHO shall use its own product regulatory system (prequalification) and Emergency Use Listing Procedure to open and stimulate markets for the manufacturers of these products.

It is doubtful that any national government could make such an overall agreement, yet in May 2024 they will be voting to provide this to what is essentially a foreign, and partly privately financed, entity.

Article 13. Supply chain and logistics

The WHO will become convenor of a ‘Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network’ for commercially-produced products, to be supplied under WHO contracts when and where the WHO determines, whilst also having the role of ensuring safety of such products.

Having mutual support coordinated between countries is good. Having this run by an organization that is significantly funded directly by those gaining from the sale of these same commodities seems reckless and counterintuitive. Few countries would allow this (or at least plan for it).

For this to occur safely, the WHO would logically have to forgo all private investment, and greatly restrict national specified funding contributions. Otherwise, the conflicts of interest involved would destroy confidence in the system. There is no suggestion of such divestment from the WHO, but rather, as in Article 12, private sector dependency, directly tied to contracts, will increase.

Article 13bis: National procurement- and distribution-related provisions

While suffering the same (perhaps unavoidable) issues regarding commercial confidentiality, this alternate Article 13 seems far more appropriate, keeping commercial issues under national jurisdiction and avoiding the obvious conflict of interests that underpin funding for WHO activities and staffing.

Article 14. Regulatory systems strengthening

This entire Article reflects initiatives and programs already in place. Nothing here appears likely to add to current effort.

Article 15. Liability and compensation management

1. Each Party shall consider developing, as necessary and in accordance with applicable law, national strategies for managing liability in its territory related to pandemic vaccines…no-fault compensation mechanisms…

2. The Parties…shall develop recommendations for the establishment and implementation of national, regional and/or global no-fault compensation mechanisms and strategies for managing liability during pandemic emergencies, including with regard to individuals that are in a humanitarian setting or vulnerable situations.

This is quite remarkable, but also reflects some national legislation, in removing any fault or liability specifically from vaccine manufacturers, for harms done in pushing out vaccines to the public. During the Covid-19 response, genetic therapeutics being developed by BioNtech and Moderna were reclassified as vaccines, on the basis that an immune response is stimulated after they have modified intracellular biochemical pathways as a medicine normally does.

This enabled specific trials normally required for carcinogenicity and teratogenicity to be bypassed, despite raised fetal abnormality rates in animal trials. It will enable the CEPI 100-day vaccine program, supported with private funding to support private mRNA vaccine manufacturers, to proceed without any risk to the manufacturer should there be subsequent public harm.

Together with an earlier provision on public funding of research and manufacturing readiness, and the removal of former wording requiring intellectual property sharing in Article 11, this ensures vaccine manufacturers and their investors make profit in effective absence of risk.

These entities are currently heavily invested in support for WHO, and were strongly aligned with the introduction of newly restrictive outbreak responses that emphasized and sometimes mandated their products during the Covid-19 outbreak.

Article 16. International collaboration and cooperation

A somewhat pointless article. It suggests that countries cooperate with each other and the WHO to implement the other agreements in the Agreement.

Article 17. Whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches

A list of essentially motherhood provisions related to planning for a pandemic. However, countries will legally be required to maintain a ‘national coordination multisectoral body’ for PPPR. This will essentially be an added burden on budgets, and inevitably divert further resources from other priorities. Perhaps just strengthening current infectious disease and nutritional programs would be more impactful. (Nowhere in this Agreement is nutrition discussed (essential for resilience to pathogens) and minimal wording is included on sanitation and clean water (other major reasons for reduction in infectious disease mortality over past centuries).

However, the ‘community ownership’ wording is interesting (“empower and enable community ownership of, and contribution to, community readiness for and resilience [for PPPR]”), as this directly contradicts much of the rest of the Agreement, including the centralization of control under the Conference of Parties, requirements for countries to allocate resources to pandemic preparedness over other community priorities, and the idea of inspecting and assessing adherence to the centralized requirements of the Agreement. Either much of the rest of the Agreement is redundant, or this wording is purely for appearance and not to be followed (and therefore should be removed).

Article 18. Communication and public awareness

1. Each Party shall promote timely access to credible and evidence-based information …with the aim of countering and addressing misinformation or disinformation…

2. The Parties shall, as appropriate, promote and/or conduct research and inform policies on factors that hinder or strengthen adherence to public health and social measures in a pandemic, as well as trust in science and public health institutions and agencies.

The key word is as appropriate, given that many agencies, including the WHO, have overseen or aided policies during the Covid-19 response that have greatly increased poverty, child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and education loss.

As the WHO has been shown to be significantly misrepresenting pandemic risk in the process of advocating for this Agreement and related instruments, its own communications would also fall outside the provision here related to evidence-based information, and fall within normal understandings of misinformation. It could not therefore be an arbiter of correctness of information here, so the Article is not implementable. Rewritten to recommend accurate evidence-based information being promoted, it would make good sense, but this is not an issue requiring a legally binding international agreement.

Article 19. Implementation and support

3. The WHO Secretariat…organize the technical and financial assistance necessary to address such gaps and needs in implementing the commitments agreed upon under the Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005).

As the WHO is dependent on donor support, its ability to address gaps in funding within Member States is clearly not something it can guarantee. The purpose of this article is unclear, repeating in paragraphs 1 and 2 the earlier intent for countries to generally support each other.

Article 20. Sustainable financing

1. The Parties commit to working together…In this regard, each Party, within the means and resources at its disposal, shall:

(a) prioritize and maintain or increase, as necessary, domestic funding for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, without undermining other domestic public health priorities including for: (i) strengthening and sustaining capacities for the prevention, preparedness and response to health emergencies and pandemics, in particular the core capacities of the International Health Regulations (2005);…

This is silly wording, as countries obviously have to prioritize within budgets, so that moving funds to one area means removing from another. The essence of public health policy is weighing and making such decisions; this reality seems to be ignored here through wishful thinking. (a) is clearly redundant, as the IHR (2005) already exists and countries have agreed to support it.

3. A Coordinating Financial Mechanism (the “Mechanism”) is hereby established to support the implementation of both the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations (2005)

This will be in parallel to the Pandemic Fund recently commenced by the World Bank – an issue not lost on INB delegates and so likely to change here in the final version. It will also be additive to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and other health financing mechanisms, and so require another parallel international bureaucracy, presumably based in Geneva.

It is intended to have its own capacity to “conduct relevant analyses on needs and gaps, in addition to tracking cooperation efforts,” so it will not be a small undertaking.

Chapter III. Institutional and final provisions

Article 21. Conference of the Parties

1. A Conference of the Parties is hereby established.

2. The Conference of the Parties shall keep under regular review, every three years, the implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and take the decisions necessary to promote its effective implementation.

This sets up the governing body to oversee this Agreement (another body requiring a secretariat and support). It is intended to meet within a year of the Agreement coming into force, and then set its own rules on meeting thereafter. It is likely that many provisions outlined in this draft of the Agreement will be deferred to the COP for further discussion.

Articles 22 – 37

These articles cover the functioning of the Conference of Parties (COP) and various administrative issues.

Of note, ‘block votes’ will be allowed from regional bodies (e.g. the EU).

The WHO will provide the secretariat.

Under Article 24 is noted:

3. Nothing in the WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be interpreted as providing the Secretariat of the World Health Organization, including the WHO Director-General, any authority to direct, order, alter or otherwise prescribe the domestic laws or policies of any Party, or to mandate or otherwise impose any requirements that Parties take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures, or implement lockdowns.

These provisions are explicitly stated in the proposed amendments to the IHR, to be considered alongside this agreement. Article 26 notes that the IHR is to be interpreted as compatible, thereby confirming that the IHR provisions including border closures and limits on freedom of movement, mandated vaccination, and other lockdown measures are not negated by this statement.

As Article 26 states: “The Parties recognize that the WHO Pandemic Agreement and the International Health Regulations should be interpreted so as to be compatible.”

Some would consider this subterfuge – The Director-General recently labeled as liars those who claimed the Agreement included these powers, whilst failing to acknowledge the accompanying IHR amendments. The WHO could do better in avoiding misleading messaging, especially when this involves denigration of the public.

Article 32 (Withdrawal) requires that, once adopted, Parties cannot withdraw for a total of 3 years (giving notice after a minimum of 2 years). Financial obligations undertaken under the agreement continue beyond that time.

Finally, the Agreement will come into force, assuming a two-thirds majority in the WHA is achieved (Article 19, WHO Constitution), 30 days after the fortieth country has ratified it.

Further reading:

WHO Pandemic Agreement Intergovernmental Negotiating Board website:

https://inb.who.int/

International Health Regulations Working Group website:

https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html

On background to the WHO texts:

Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide
An Unofficial Q&A on International Health Regulations
On urgency and burden of pandemics:

https://essl.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/download/228/rational-policy-over-panic

Disease X and Davos: This is Not the Way to Evaluate and Formulate Public Health Policy
Before Preparing for Pandemics, We Need Better Evidence of Risk
Revised Draft of the negotiating text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement:

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

Authors

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

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

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

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide/

https://www.minds.com/donshafi911/blog/the-who-pandemic-agreement-a-guide-1621719398509187077

BREAKING: Integration of corona vaccine-contaminated DNA into the human cell line genome
2nd Smartest Guy in the World
This important article further establishes that the Modified mRNA “vaccines” integrate into the cells. While these contaminated cells do not express the entire spike protein, but, rather, only part of it, the net effect is that the DNA of the “vaccinated” is irrevocably altered.

Any type of integration into the genome, especially when being assaulted by millions of different random sequences from the “vaccine,” will inevitably cause mutations and other damage to the genome, irrespective if the entire spike protein is expressed, or not.

This DNA contamination ultimately results in the plethora of slow kill bioweapon adverse events that we are now seeing in surging amounts, not limited to prion diseases, turbo cancers, SADS, and so on and so forth.

The below is translated from Japanese, and it is a rather technical read, but well worth your time.


by Mao Arakawa (Okudo Hirokushi)

The essence of the corona vaccine contaminated DNA problem is the possibility of altering the human genome. To validate this possibility, Dr. Ulrike Kaemmerer conducted an experiment to administer the corona vaccine to MCF7 and OVCAR-3 cancer cell lines. Dr. McKernan, consulted by Dr. Kaemmerer, conducted an experiment to detect contaminated DNA from these cell lines. He reports on his blog the first case of contaminated DNA integration into the cancer cell line genome. (2SG: yesterdays article entitled, UPDATE: Doctors Warn mRNA "Vaccines" Could Spur Epidemic of Prion Brain Diseases addresses this.)

I was interested, so I attempted to recreate the DNA recombinant event that Dr. McKernan identified. In this article, I will show the results of my analysis.

Nepetalactone Newsletter

Vaccine targeted qPCR of Cancer Cell Lines treated with BNT162b2

Ulrike Kaemmerer has treated MCF7 and OvCar3 cancer cell lines with various vaccines. Once transfected they performed cell passaging on these transfected cell lines to dilute out the residual vaccine and identify cells which were transfected. They performed Immunohistochemistry (IHC) on these cells and documented spike expression levels…

Read more

14 days ago · 109 likes · 22 comments · Anandamide

image
Figure 1
Dr. Kaemmerer administered the corona vaccine from Pfizer and AstraZeneca to the ovarian tumor cell line OVCAR-3 and, after subculture, confirmed the expression of the spikutanpak by immunohistochemical staining. Deep Sequencing comes at a high cost; therefore, preliminary experiments are required in advance to perform DNA detection experiments. Dr. McKernan first screened post-vaccination cells with qPCR and targeted qPCR-positive cells for deep sequencing.

Contaminated DNA that is not integrated into the genome is diluted with subculture. In fact, the Ct value of the vector was Ct 30.28 in the first generation, but it was 34.72 in the second generation. The difference in 4Ct is 16 times the difference, and that is the lower concentration in the second passage. Dr. McKernan extracted DNA from two cells subcultured and performed deep sequencing. Sequence data detected SV40, replication origin and spiked DNA. Spike DNA was detected in the full genomic shotgun library of vaccine-treated samples with 3000x coverage. (Coverage means the percentage of the total base pair or locus of the genome covered by sequencing.) Since the coverage in the human genome was 30 times, we can see that the DNA with a large number of copies of the genome was invading the cell.

As a result, strangely, SNP (monobasic polymorphism) was detected in deep sequencing at the origin of the vaccine plasmid replication (F1 and SV40). This SNP does not exist in the vaccine. In other words, it seems that plasmids are mutating in cells. Also, the coverage of deep sequencing in the replication origin area is higher than average, and the number of copies observed is relatively high, which means that the DNA embedded in the cell may be duplicated and mutated. I mean. Originally, plasmids and SV40 DNA replication require specific enzymes not owned by human cells. Experiments such as the introduction of large amounts of microDNA fragments containing replication points into cells are not usually performed in molecular genetics. It is possible that unexpected DNA replication is occurring within the cell.

A total of two genomic integrations were observed in the vaccinated cell line from the analysis of Deep Sequencing by Dr. McKernan. Individual arrays of deep sequencing are called 「 leads 」. It was very interesting data, so I tried to re-parse the lead myself.

image
Figure 2
Figure 2 is a lead showing genomic integration in Dr. McKernan's Deep Sequencing Analysis. The subject of the analysis is Genome Integration Leads 1 and 2. You can also read a lot of information from short array data. This time in comparison with the human genomeblat searchTo find homologyblast searchI used it.

Now, after that, it will be my own re-parse.

image
Figure 3
The top of the array in Figure 3 is the lead. As you can tell by aligning this lead with the 12th chromosome (black) and the spike gene (red) of the Pfizer Corona vaccine, the 12th chromosome (black) is on the way to the spike gene (red). I am switching. And there is a short identical array (here GAGAG) in the place of switching. You can see that the end-recombination (MMEJ, Microhomology-mediated end joining) mediated by microhomology (microhomology) recombinates the contaminated DNA and human genome. Since MMEJ involves multiple intracellular DNA repair enzymes, this recombination is an artifact (mistake product) in the test tube. Instead, gene recombination may have occurred in cells.

Genome integration occurs on the long arm of chromosome 12, and the FAIM2 gene is present at this locus. FAIM2 is a gene that has been suggested to be associated with cancer malignancy. Recombinations occur on introns (arrays that do not encode proteins), but I do not know how such mutations also affect gene expression.

image
Figure 4
Another example of genomic integration is Figure 4. If you align this lead with chromosome 9 (black) and spike gene (red), you can see that in the lead, chromosome 9 (black) is switching to the spike gene (red) on the way. There is a short identical array (here TCTGCCCT) in the place where this example also switches. After all, it is believed that the contaminated DNA and the human genome were recombined using microhomology. Since there are multiple pathways for DNA repair, which repair pathway is used when foreign DNA is taken into the genome is case-by-case.

Part of the lead had an Illumina adapter array left. Adapter arrays are arrays granted to PCR amplify and sequence DNA for deep sequencing. Originally, the adapter array is removed during parsing, but often the removal is inadequate and remains in the lead.

Integration of contaminated DNA into the genome is occurring near Centromea. Let's talk a little about Centromea. Two chromosomes with the same genetic information that can be done after DNA replication are chromatids (sister chromatids). The chromatids are connected until the chromosomes are distributed during cell division, but the region on the connected DNA is Centromea. As such, Centromea is an important area for chromosome separation and distribution.

image
Figure 5
Figure 5 is about the DNA fragments of the spike gene integrated into the genome. On the Pfizer Corona vaccine spike gene, the sequence found in the genome integrated lead was written in red. Due to lead length limitations, the actual integrated array will be even larger. The integrated sequence is part of the spike gene, and it is not possible to make a full-length spike sequence. However, it is unpredictable how contaminated DNA will be inserted into any area of the genome and have any effect.

image
Figure 6
Nucleotype (cario type) means the size, shape, and number of chromosomes. Human chromosomes consist of a total of 46 22 pairs of autosomal and one pair of sex chromosomes. The autosomal is assigned the number 1 chromosome, number 2 chromosome,, number 22 chromosome and number in order of size. The integrated site of contaminated DNA is the FAIM2 locus on the long arm of chromosome 9 and near Centromea on chromosome 12.

The genomic integration observed this time is the first two cases in cultured cell experiments, but the specific identification of recombinant sequences with the human genome of contaminated DNA is a major advance. Further verification experiments will be advanced in the future. Genome integration, as in Figure 6, does not know which locus actually occurs on the genome. This is exactly the 「 shotgun attack on the genome 」. What happens in cultured cells can also occur in normal cells, with a wide variety of alterations depending on the site of genomic integration. The first predicted catabolism is cancer induction and malignancy. And then, the ones that manifest themselves over time are various genetic diseases.

What is known as a factor that causes genomic damage is, for example, radiation exposure, but genomic modification by contaminated DNA is different in that it is due to fragments of artificially created genes, and random mutations which are akin to radiation. But it is fundamentally different in nature. This experiment in cultured cells epitomizes genomic integration of contaminated DNA. This is a real problem that a large number of humans around the world, under the name of vaccination, are now experiencing a「 transfection human body experiment 」of contaminated DNA.

The genomic modification of humanity is a direct consequence of the largest experiment in history of mRNA drug substance harm, and in the future it may be etched in history as the「 original sin 」of humanity.


Original Social Engineering Sin

Original Social Engineering Sin
“...the socio-psychological foundations of socialism is identical to that of the foundations of a state, if there were no institution enforcing socialistic ideas of property, there would be no room for a state, as a state is nothing else than an institution built on taxation and unsolicited, noncontractual interference with the use that private people c…

Read full story

They want you dead.

Do NOT comply.




Upgrade to paid

Shop 2SG merch

Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetMectin

Use code 2SGPET for 10% off PetDazole

Use code 2SGPET for 10% off FishCycline



BREAKING: Integration of corona vaccine-contaminated DNA into the human cell line genome




https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/breaking-integration-of-corona-vaccine

https://telegra.ph/BREAKING-Integration-of-corona-vaccine-contaminated-DNA-into-the-human-cell-line-genome-03-11

Discover Unique Postcards in Winnipeg: Explore Local Gems and Landmarks

Immerse yourself in the charm of Winnipeg with our collection of exquisite postcards showcasing the city's iconic landmarks, vibrant culture, and hidden treasures. From the historic Exchange District to the picturesque Assiniboine Park, each postcard captures the essence of Winnipeg's beauty and invites you to share a piece of this captivating city with your loved ones.

Source: https://www.printprowinnipeg.com/postcards/products/

Researchers urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on mRNA injections in a newly released science paper
Rhoda WilsonJanuary 26, 2024
In a paper published on Wednesday, researchers re-analysed the Pfizer covid “vaccine” phase 3 trial data and found more serious adverse events among those in the vaccine group.

This is not what published reports from Pfizer’s phase 3 trials said. “Many key trial findings were either misreported or omitted entirely from published reports,” the researchers said.

Seven researchers – M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Russ Wolfinger, Jessica Rose, Kris Denhaerynck, Steve Kirsch and Peter A. McCullough – set out to re-analyse Pfizer’s trial data because:

our understanding of covid vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts; and,
problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of the pivotal phase 3 trials have emerged.
On Wednesday, they published their findings in a peer-reviewed paper titled ‘Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’. The paper was published in Cureus, a journal of medical science.

“Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group,” the researchers wrote.

Adding, “Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, haematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders.”

The EUA the researchers are referring to is the authorisation granted to Pfizer by the US Food and Drugs Administration (“FDA”).

As the paper noted, Pfizer’s covid “vaccines” never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing according to previously established scientific standards. It goes on to detail the absolute risk reduction, the underreporting of harms during trials, the shifting narratives and illusions of protection, quality control and manufacturing process-related impurities, the biological mechanisms underlying adverse events (“AEs”) and why, based on how our immune systems work, the vaccine is ineffective.

Concluding their comprehensive review, the researchers wrote:

Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

Mead M, Seneff S, Wolfinger R, et al. (January 24, 2024) COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus 16(1): e52876. doi:10.7759/cureus.52876none
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

The paper noted that the gene therapy products (“GTPs”) vaccine platform has been studied for over 30 years as an experimental cancer treatment, with the terms “gene therapy” and “mRNA vaccination” often used interchangeably.

“Although we employ the terms ‘vaccine’ and ‘vaccination’ throughout this paper, the covid-19 mRNA products are also accurately termed gene therapy products (GTPs) because, in essence, this was a case of GTP technology being applied to vaccination,” they wrote.

As such, throughout their analysis, the terms “vaccines” and “vaccinations” are used interchangeably with injections, inoculations, biologicals, or simply, products.

The following are some excerpts from the paper. You can read the full paper HERE.

Serious Harms Revealed after EUA was Granted

In this narrative review, we revisit the registrational trials and review analyses of the AEs from these trials and other relevant studies. Most of the revelations have only recently come to light, due to the past few years of extensive censorship of healthcare professionals and research scientists who challenged the prevailing narrative set forth by the vaccine enterprise.

Despite the rhetoric, no large randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalisation or death.

The study designs for the pivotal trials that led to the EUA were never intended to determine whether the mRNA inoculations could help prevent severe disease or premature death.

It was only after the EUA that the serious biological consequences of rushing the trials became evident, with numerous cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, haematological, malignant, and autoimmune SAEs identified and published in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Moreover, the covid mRNA vaccines produced via Process 1 and evaluated in the trials were not the same products eventually distributed worldwide; all of the covid-19 mRNA products released to the public were produced via Process 2 and have been shown to have varying degrees of DNA contamination.

The process-related impurities were absent from the covid-19 mRNA products used in the registrational trials. Virtually all doses used in those trials originated from “clinical batches” produced using what is known as Process 1. As a post-authorisation emergency supply measure for global distribution, however, a method much more suitable for mass production known as Process 2 was devised utilising bacterial plasmid DNA.

The failure of regulatory authorities to heretofore disclose process-related impurities (e.g., SV40) has further increased concerns regarding safety and quality control oversight of mRNA vaccine manufacturing processes.

Incentives Played a Key Role in Undermining Scientific Evaluation

Political and financial incentives may have played a key role in undermining the scientific evaluation process leading up to the EUA.

Before the pandemic, the US National Institutes of Health invested $116 million (35%) in mRNA vaccine technology, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (“BARDA”) had invested $148 million (44%), while the Department of Defence (“DOD”) contributed $72 million (21%) to mRNA vaccine development.

BARDA and the DOD also collaborated closely in the co-development of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine, dedicating over $18 billion, which included guaranteed vaccine purchases. This entailed pre-purchasing hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccine doses, alongside direct financial support for the clinical trials and the expansion of Moderna’s manufacturing capabilities.

Once the pandemic began, $29.2 billion – 92% of which came from US public funds – was dedicated to the purchase of covid-19 mRNA products; another $2.2 billion (7%) was channelled into supporting clinical trials, and $108 million (less than 1%) was allocated for manufacturing and basic research.

Using US taxpayer money to purchase so many doses in advance would suggest that, before the EUA process, US federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.

Established Vaccine Testing Period Abolished

Before the rapid authorisation process, no vaccine had been permitted for market release without undergoing a testing period of at least four years. Previous timeframes for phase 3 trial testing averaged 10 years. Health departments have stated that 10-15 years is the normal timeframe for evaluating vaccine safety.

The previously established 10-15-year timeframe for clinical evaluation of vaccines was deemed necessary to ensure adequate time for monitoring the development of AEs such as cancers and autoimmune disorders.

Pfizer’s covid vaccine completed the process in seven months.

Established Safety Standards Abolished

With the covid vaccines, safety was never assessed in a manner commensurate with previously established scientific standards, as numerous safety testing and toxicology protocols typically followed by the FDA were sidestepped.

Historical accounts bear witness to instances where vaccines were prematurely introduced to the market under immense pressure, only to reveal disabling or even fatal AEs later on. Examples include the 1955 contamination of polio vaccines, instances of Guillain-Barré syndrome observed in flu vaccine recipients in 1976, and the connection between narcolepsy and a specific flu vaccine in 2009.

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that so many medical and public health experts voiced concerns about covid mRNA vaccines bypassing the normal safety testing process.

Concerns about inadequate safety testing extend beyond the usual regulatory approval standards and practices.

As there were no specific regulations at the time of the rapid approval process, regulatory agencies quickly “adapted” the products, generalised the definition of “vaccine” to accommodate them, and then authorised them for EUA for the first time ever against a viral disease.

Due to the GTPs’ reclassification as vaccines, none of their components have been thoroughly evaluated for safety. The main concern, in a nutshell, is that the covid mRNA products may transform body cells into viral protein factories that have no off-switch – i.e., no built-in mechanism to stop or regulate such proliferation – with the spike protein (“S-protein”) being generated for prolonged periods, causing chronic, systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction.

When the S-protein enters the bloodstream and disseminates systemically, it may become a contributing factor to diverse AEs in susceptible people.

Enforce a Global Moratorium

Given the well-documented SAEs and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.



https://expose-news.com/2024/01/26/researchers-urge-a-global-moratorium-on-mrna/

USING YOUR MENTAL ENERGY
PART 116

These 3 facts are:
(1) All space is filled with a #CreativePower.
(2) This creative power is amenable to #suggestions.
(3) You can only work by deductive methods.

The last is an exceedingly important one, for it implies that the action of the ever-present creative power is in no way limited by precedent.

It works according to the #essence of the #spirit of the #principle.

Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
[email protected] January 27, 2024 genocide, icj, international court of justice
Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
World Court rules on Gaza emergency measures in Israel genocide case, in The Hague (photo)
Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, the dissenting judges, the binding nature of the decision, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties.

Summary of ICJ’s ruling

reposted from Al Jazeera

The World Court ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against the Hamas group in the Gaza Strip. (15-2)

(vote 15-2) 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, in particular:

(a) killing members of the group
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above

(vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip

(vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month as from the date of this Order.

The court stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.



Who are the ICJ judges that voted against motions?

Julia Sebutinde – voted against all motions

In 1996, Sebutinde was appointed as one of the judges of the High Court of Uganda. In 2012, she became the first African woman to be appointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the world court. She has broken barriers and paved the way for countless other African women in the field of law.

Sebutinde got her undergraduate degree in Uganda, and Master’s and Doctorate of Law at the University of Edinburgh. She has contributed immensely to international law jurisprudence through the cases she has heard, often with dissenting opinions.

Regarding her voting record in this case, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations stated,

Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda ‘s voting pattern at the United Nations.

Aharon Barak – voted against most motions

Barak is an Israeli lawyer who was appointed to the 15-judge panel of the ICJ ahead of South Africa’s case against Israel. Under the ICJ’s rules, a country that does not have a judge to represent its own on the bench can choose an ad hoc judge.

The 87-year-old is a retired judge from the Israeli Supreme Court and a recipient of the Israel Prize for Legal Studies. Barak was born in Lithuania and, studied law in Hebrew University.

He was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 1978, where he went on to serve for 28 years.

The ICJ full panel is led by President Joan E. Donoghue from the US and Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian from Russia. They head a diverse bench with judges from 13 other countries including Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Brazil. Two ad hoc judges appointed to the panel for this case were from Israel and South Africa.

FAQ: Are decisions of the Court binding?

reposted from the ICJ website

Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”.

Judgments are final and without appeal. If there is a dispute about the meaning or scope of a judgment, the only possibility is for one of the parties to make a request to the Court for an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment.

As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not, by whichever means they see fit.

The ICJ ruling is a repudiation of Israel and its western backers

by Kenneth Roth, reposted from the Guardian

The international court of justice’s (ICJ) ruling in South Africa’s genocide case was a powerful repudiation of Israel’s denialism. By an overwhelming majority, the court found a “plausible” case that provisional measures were needed to avoid “irreparable prejudice” from further Israeli acts in Gaza that could jeopardize Palestinian rights under the genocide convention.

The public posture of various Israeli officials was, in essence: how dare anyone accuse us of genocide. After all, they pointed out, Israel was founded after the Holocaust to protect the Jewish people from genocide, Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, and many of Hamas’s statements seem genocidal in intent.

Yet none of that is a defense to the charge of genocide. Regardless of Israel’s history, regardless of its claim of self-defense, the means chosen to fight Hamas can still be genocidal. The court found enough merit in that claim to recognize that Palestinian civilians need the court’s protection.

The court’s ruling was also a repudiation of Israel’s western backers. The Biden administration had called the suit “meritless”. The British government said it was “nonsense”. By a vote of 15 to 2, the ICJ judges found otherwise.

On the need to allow humanitarian aid to a starving population in Gaza and to prevent and punish the incitement of genocide, even the respected Israeli judge, Aharon Barak, joined the majority, making the vote 16 to 1 – a powerful repudiation of those who try to chalk up challenges to Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an unfair double standard or antisemitism.

The current proceedings were not about the ultimate merits of the case. It could take years to determine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. But the provisional measures ordered by the court could make an enormous difference in curbing the death and suffering of Palestinian civilians now.

What now?

The key will be enforcement. The ICJ ruling is “binding”, as the court stressed, but the ICJ has no military or police force at its disposal. For coercive measures, it would need a resolution of the UN security council, which requires contending with the US government’s veto, so often deployed to protect Israel.

But the political pressure to comply with the ruling will be enormous. Having trusted the court to send its lawyers to The Hague to present its case, Israel would look horrible to reject the court just because it lost. In calling the underlying genocide charges “outrageous” – a finding that, as mentioned, the court did not yet address – the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, notably did not say he would refuse to comply with the court’s provisional measures. Let’s hope he will.

Some were disappointed that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, a step that was unlikely because the court addresses only disputes between states, so Hamas was not a party. A ceasefire imposed on only one side to an ongoing armed conflict is not plausible.

The court did order Israel to “take all measures within its power” to halt acts that contribute to genocide, to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza to end the suffering among Palestinian civilians, and to prevent and punish the public statements of incitement made by senior Israeli officials. Israel must report back to the court in a month on the steps it has taken.

Yet there is a lot of wiggle room in those orders. That’s where Israel’s supporters come in. Will they move past their earlier skepticism toward the case and now urge Israel to comply? Western governments backed the ICJ in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia and Syria. It would do enormous damage to the “rules-based order” that Western governments claim to uphold if they were to make an exception for Israel.

Joe Biden holds the most powerful leverage. The US government provides $3.8bn in annual military aid to Israel and is its principal arms supplier. That support should stop if the Israeli government ignores the court’s ruling. The US president should no longer put his fear of domestic political consequences, or his personal identification with Israel, before the lives of so many Palestinian civilians.

Other pressure for compliance could come from the international criminal court. Unlike the ICJ, which resolves disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals for such crimes as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Better behavior now is no defense for crimes already committed, but if Israel were to ignore the ICJ ruling, that would be an added spur for the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to act.

Much is still unresolved, but today is a win for the rule of law. South Africa, a nation of the global south, was able to transcend power politics by invoking the world’s leading judicial institution. The court’s ruling shows that even governments with powerful friends can be held to account. That provides hope for the profoundly suffering Palestinian civilians of Gaza. It is also a small but important step toward a more lawful, rights-respecting world.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs

Nine take-aways from the ICJ ruling

by Huwaida Arraf, reposted from X

While many are disappointed that the ICJ did not explicitly order a ceasefire, the ruling was historic and a huge defeat for Israel. Here’s what we need to take away and what we need to do:

The Court found that RSA made a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and October 7 is no justification for Israel’s conduct. This is huge.
The Court found that immediate protective measures are necessary to protect the Palestinian people from irreparable harm caused by Israel’s genocidal conduct and ordered such measures.
In order for Israel to abide by the measures, including the provision of basic services (turning on water, electricity and allowing the entry of fuel) and humanitarian aid, it would need to cease its military assault. Aid organizations have said that one of the main reasons they are unable to deliver aid, besides Israel’s restrictions on entry of aid, is Israel’s military aggression which makes it too dangerous for them to reach many areas.
The Court has also instituted a monitoring mechanism and Israel must report on everything it’s doing to abide by the Order of the Court within a month (should have been shorter).
ALL countries signatory to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent genocide. This means that, when there is reason to believe that there is a threat of genocide, states MUST act to prevent it. All countries are now on notice that there is a plausible threat of genocide.
This means that, continuing to supply Israel with weapons and vetoing UNSC resolutions will amount to violations of that responsibility and also a potential violation of Art III of the Convention, prohibiting complicity in genocide.
If Israel does not comply with the ICJ Order, the matter should be brought before the UNSC. If the US vetoes, this will be an indictment of the US, but not the end.
States must then use UNGA 377 – Uniting for Peace – to not only bring the matter before the UNGA, but to make sure that the UNGA resolution includes implementation measures (without an agreement on such measures, the resolution will be ineffective). Such measures can include international sanctions on Israel and suspending Israel’s membership in the UN.
Alongside all of this, we must continue our work in the streets and in national courts to hold Israel and enablers accountable. This includes:
continuing to demand that our governments sanction Israel;
demanding Israel’s suspension from international fora such as Eurovision and international sporting arenas;
using the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli war criminals in national courts, which is already being pursued.
The World Court has found that Israel may be committing genocide — the mother of all crimes. This is an indictment, not only on Israel, but on all who have been enabling Israel and using October 7, as justification.

It must also be a wakeup call to all who have been silent. There’s no excuse.

Huwaida Arraf is a Palestinian American activist and lawyer who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led organization using non-violent protests and international pressure to support Palestinians.

ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge

A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place.

by Trita Parsi, reposted from Responsible Statecraft, January 26, 2024

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.

In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result.

On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.

This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.

Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide. As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the U.S. under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.

The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the United Nations Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”

So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.

The double standards of U.S. foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.

It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.

Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.

This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.

As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.

This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the U.S. and UK’s military action against the Houthis?

The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The U.S. is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.

International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.

One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.* Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Israel appears to have done little, if anything, to moderate its war conduct since South Africa submitted its genocide accusation on December 29th. The numbers of Palestinians killed in Gaza and the West Bank has continued to climb steadily; while there has been a slight improvement in number of humanitarian aid trucks, it is not impressive, and not reaching the north where hundreds of thousands are starving. There is still no electricity, no water, almost no medical services, and no safety.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Some reactions to ICJ ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

reposted from Al Jazeera

Palestinians in Gaza

Palestinians in Gaza said they are devastated by the ICJ decision not to order Israel to cease its near-four-month bombardment and ground invasion of the strip.

Ahmed al-Naffar, 54, who was intently following the court’s announcement in central Gaza’s Deir el-Balah, told Al Jazeera: “Although I don’t trust the international community, I had a small glimmer of hope that the court would rule on a ceasefire in Gaza,” later adding that “The court is a failure.”

Palestinians in the occupied West Bank

Lubna Farhat, a member of the Ramallah city council, told Al Jazeera she was somewhat disappointed by the ICJ decision but acknowledged it was a historic moment.

“We are very grateful and thankful for South Africa for filing this case, but what Palestinians aspired for was an immediate ceasefire,” Farhat said, adding that it was disheartening that the court did not call for an end to Israel’s military operations so humanitarian aid could be allowed into Gaza.

She said the ruling would only “escalate” settler attacks in the occupied West Bank and increase the attackers’ sense of impunity.

Palestine

Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates welcomed the ICJ’s ruling, saying in a statement it is an “important reminder” that no state is above the law.

Foreign Minister Riyadh Maliki noted that Israel failed to persuade the court that it is not violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.

In a statement he said: “The ICJ judges saw through Israel’s politicization, deflection, and outright lies. They assessed the facts and the law and ordered provisional measures that recognized the gravity of the situation on the ground and the veracity of South Africa’s application. … Palestine calls on all states to ensure respect for the order of the International Court of Justice, including by Israel.”

Israel

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the ruling as “outrageous”.

In a video message shortly after the court order, he said Israel is fighting a “just war like no other”. He added that Israel will continue to defend itself and its citizens while adhering to international law.

Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court issued its interim ruling. “Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on the social media platform X.

South Africa

The South African government called the ICJ ruling a “decisive victory” for international law.

“How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor asked. “If you read the order, by implication, a ceasefire must happen.”

United States

The United States said the ruling of the ICJ was consistent with 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.

European Union

“Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” the European Commission said in a statement.

RELATED READING:

The ICJ presentations on Israeli genocide against Palestinians
Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers
John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza
Is the United Nations anti-Israel? – a survey of UN resolutions
Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war

https://israelpalestinenews.org/synopsis-of-icjs-decision-on-israeli-genocide-reactions-and-take-aways/

Excuse me but no, a country that routinely uses white phosphorous to burn and maim children, and send them to their early grave, to a life of handicap of to excruciating pain does not have a right to exist.

Any country that practices systemic, deliberate, continual sadism and brutality against people does not have a right to exist.

And in even broader terms: any political organization that does not have justice at its core not only does not have a right to exist, it is our right and duty to bring about its demise.

This is because political organizations, which is what all countries are, are not divine entities that we must protect religiously. The opposite is true: the only reason for the existence of any political organization is promoting what is good and just for people.

This is'nt just me saying: morality and justice are ingrained into the essence of what is human. We love fairness and hate injustice. This is how we are made (all complaints should be addressed to the manufacturer).

This is why this genocidal campaign is a huge self-delegitimization move on behalf of the west: most people will hate what is perceived as unjust and those who enable it, and no amount of manipulation, false reasoning and shadowbanning can change it.
-
This does not only, and must not apply only to Israel. This is universal, and it is on all of us to channel the energy generated by this catastrophe into a global movement, or quest, for justice and humanity, rather than wasteful partisan nonsense. We must never go back to being asleep.

This is also why South Africa's appeal to the ICJ is so commendable and pivotal: it forces a major international player to face justice, and it breaks the mold as part of which countries mutually forgive each other's inhumanity, for the sake of a status quo that only benefits respective elites.

I guess when you have freed yourself from apartheid you can't be part of the corrupt game anymore; which is why I'm sure Palestinians will become global leaders on justice when they get finally get theirs

https://twitter.com/alon_mizrahi/status/1750081880987258885?t=eyG5Mi9jlG80VI49hiTNwg&s=19

The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
Claudio RestaJanuary 18, 2024

VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors:



US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA)

– Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and organizations non-profit – seeks to control and criminalize “wrong thinking”.
– The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media.
They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, and the discrediting of dissidents “as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship in their comparisons.”
– Documents show that the weaponization of the financial sector originated with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), which specifically sought to get banks to “cut off financial services to individuals organizing gatherings or events.”
– CTIL files also show that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant, “the ethic was that if we get away with it, it’s legal.”

Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and non-profit organizations – regulates and criminalizes “wrong thinking”.


as Ursula Van der Leyen, the president of European Commission since 2019,

stated at the WEF in Davos on January 17th, 2023 similar censorship are the most urgent and necessary policies (!) and will be implemented everywhere

They describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, which officially began as a volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans, but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The CTI League documents provide missing answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Together, they offer a complete picture of the rise of the “anti-disinformation” industry, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex.”

The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media.

They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, the discrediting of dissidents, and the deliberate weaponization of the financial industry against them .

According to the whistleblower, the CTIL was also involved in the creation of a counter-disinformation project to “avoid a repeat of 2016”, a reference to Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the elections, two situations in which the democratic processes have actually won.

As Jimmy Dore noted, it wasn’t about preventing the circulation of false information.

It was about ensuring that no political outsider could ever enter the Oval Office again.

The instruction to prevent a repeat of 2016 was a direct call to undermine, if not eliminate, the process of free and fair elections.

Importantly, the documents admit that censorship efforts against Americans must be carried out by private sector partners, because the government does not have “legal authority” to do so.

The new series of documents and videos reveals that 2019 was a pivotal year for the censorship industrial complex. According to Public, it was then that “US and British military and intelligence contractors, led by a former British defense researcher, Sara-Jayne ‘SJ’ Terp, developed the blanket censorship framework.”



These contractors became co-leaders of CTIL, whose original founders were a former Israeli intelligence official, Ohad Zaidenberg, the person responsible of Microsoft security Nate Warfield, Chris Mills, another Microsoft security official, and Marc Rogers, the head of security operations at the hacker convention DEF CON.

According to media reports , these highly trained and in-demand professionals have made the altruistic decision to offer their services to help billion-dollar hospitals with their cybersecurity, for free and with no strings attached. It wasn’t a believable cover story then, and it certainly hasn’t gotten any better.

Within a month of CTIL’s founding in March 2020, this supposedly entirely volunteer group had grown to 1,400 “invitation-only” members in 76 countries and entered into an official partnership with Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security. As reported by Public:

Parallel censorship agencies

In spring 2020, CISA also created the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) – a consortium composed of the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic’s Digital Forensic Research Lab Council and from Graphika (a social media analytics company) – and outsourced what would otherwise have been illegal and unconstitutional censorship.

During the 2020 election cycle, EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-supported Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) to influence and monitor political discussions online. EIP coordinated the removal of unwanted content using a real-time chat application shared by DHS, EIP, and social media companies.

At the same time, CTIL monitored and reported anti-blockade views on social media. A “law enforcement” channel was created specifically to spy on and monitor social media users posting anti-lockdown hashtags. CTIL even kept a printout detailing their Twitter biographies.

According to Public, the CTIL has also “engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote ‘counter-messaging,’ co-opting hashtags, diluting unfavorable messaging, creating sock puppet accounts, and infiltrating private groups by invitation.” In February 2021, the EIP was renamed the Virality Project, at which point its censorship focus shifted from elections to COVID-related issues.

Government infiltration and takeover

Although CTIL member Bonnie Smalley responded to a Public question by saying that CTIL has “nothing to do with the government,” the evidence shows otherwise. At least a dozen government employees working with DHS, the FBI, and CISA were also active members of CTIL.

According to the whistleblower, CTIL’s goal “was to become part of the federal government.” Terp’s plan called for the creation of “MisinfoSec communities” that would include the federal sector, and documents show that this goal was achieved. In April 2020, Chris Krebs, then director of CISA, also publicly announced the agency’s partnership with CTIL.

The audience continues:“The documents also show that Terp and his colleagues, through a group called the MisinfoSec Working Group, which included Renee DiResta, head of research at the Stanford Internet Observatory, created a censorship, influence and counter-disinformation strategy called

Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques (AMITT).

SJ on X: "AMITT (Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques) includes the left-of-boom misinformation activities that are often missed by other analyses, where ”left of boom” covers activity before an incident

They wrote AMITT by adapting a cybersecurity framework developed by MITER… Terp then used AMITT to develop the DISARM framework, which the World Health Organization then used to “counter anti-vaccination campaigns across Europe.”

A key component of Terp’s work through CTIL, MisinfoSec and AMITT has been to bring the concept of “cognitive security” to the fields of cybersecurity and information security…

The ambitions of the 2020 pioneers of the censorship industrial complex went far beyond simply requiring Twitter to place a warning label on tweets or blacklist individuals.

The AMITT framework calls for discrediting people as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship of them. Invite influencers to train to spread messages. And he invites us to try to convince banks to cut financial services to individuals who organize demonstrations or events.”

The arming of the financial sector was born with the CTIL

Now we know where this financial sector weapon comes from. It originated with the CTIL, which hspecifically sought to induce banks to “cut financial services to individuals who organize rallies or events”.

Clearly, as my case and that of many others demonstrates, even banks and online payment processors have been tricked into cutting off services to people who simply expressed opposing views. It’s not just demonstration organizers who are being targeted.

Under the cover of altruism

Although CTIL officials have repeatedly stressed that the organization was founded on purely altruistic principles, the clear goal of its leaders was to “build support for censorship among national security and cybersecurity institutions,” writes Public, and they built that support by promoting Terp’s idea of “cognitive safety.”

The choice of the term “cognitive safety” takes on a rather sinister flavor in light of Dr. Michael Nehls’ findings that over the past four years there has been what appears to be an intentional effort to destroy autobiographical memory function in the public’s brain , thus facilitating mass indoctrination and inhibiting personal will and critical thinking.vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors

The Indoctrinated Brain - By Michael Nehls (hardcover) : Target

He presents his thesis in the book “The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”, published in mid-December 2023.

The whistleblower material clearly reveals that sophisticated military tactics have been turned against the American public, powerful psychological tools – the same tools that, according to Nehls, can literally alter the biological functions of the brain.

Public cites a MisinfoSec report in which “the authors called for placing censorship efforts within ‘cybersecurity,’ while acknowledging that ‘disinformation security’ is entirely different from cybersecurity. They wrote that the third pillar of the “information environment”, after physical and cyber security, should be the “cognitive dimension”.

Indeed, your mind – your cognition, your very ability to think independently – is the battlefield of today’s war, as Nehls proposes in his book. The scary part is that the tools used have the power to reprogram who we are.

We are indeed “hackable animals,” as proposed by Yuval Noah Harari, and the censorship industrial complex has already hacked the brain structure of billions of people over the past four years. Gutentag also talks about it in an article dated December 3, 2023:”What was once considered a “conspiracy theory”, according to which military and intelligence forces manipulated public opinion through inorganic interventions, has now been confirmed .

Our study of the censorship industrial complex has exposed a far-reaching plan to subvert the democratic process and engage in activities that have a basis in military techniques and that amount to attempts at thought or mind control.”

”It’s legal if we can get away with it”

The CTIL files also demonstrate that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector.

According to the informant:“The ethos was if we get away with it, it’s legal, and there were no First Amendment problems because we have a ‘public-private partnership’ – that’s the word they used to mask these problems. Private individuals can do things that public officials cannot do, and public officials can provide leadership and coordination.”

Good news, bad news

”The good news is that more and more information is coming out about the U.S. government’s illegal outsourcing of censorship, and with it, legal challenges that pose roadblocks to this circumvention of the Constitution.

The three activists also achieved other victories. In August 2022, DHS was forced to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board due to public backlash. CISA also deleted information about its national censorship work from its website and dismantled its Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation (MDM) subcommittee.

The federal government’s Select Subcommittee on Armaments is also continuing its search for the truth and will (hopefully) use all the power at its disposal to put an end to the abuses. Its latest report, “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech” was released on November 6, 2023.

Unfortunately, there is a global effort underway not only to normalize, but also to legalize this type of censorship by third parties.

In short, they are trying to restructure the censorship industry “away from a top-down government-led model” to a “competitive brokerage model” in which “content management” (read censorship) is simply outsourced to third-party organizations.

In this way, a “legal” market for disinformation compliance is created, while the government can claim to have nothing to do with controlling the information. In essence, we are witnessing the emergence of organized corporate censorship.

There is no clear solution to this threat other than to continue to oppose all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship. Vocally oppose, refuse to use intermediaries like NewsGuard, and boycott any company or organization that uses intermediaries or engages in censorship of any kind.”

Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too.

Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio

Latest Articles (2023-Present)
Archived Articles (2019-2022)


ATTENTION READERS

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

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

https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/the-cyber-threat-intelligence-league/

BOMBSHELL! Inside mRNA Vaccines a Human Molecule Diabolically Altered | VT Foreign Policy
donshafi911
BOMBSHELL! Inside mRNA Vaccines a Human Molecule Diabolically Altered | VT Foreign Policy

January 6, 2024

VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel
$ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts

Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State.

In the cover image, the Canadian researcher Jessica Rose, author of an excellent biochemical analysis of an article from the University of Cambridge commenting a study by some of its researchers on the toxicity of manipulated human nucleoside in mRNA genetic sera

by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

«Well of course! Now that we know that billions of people’s cells might be making aberrant proteins, for unknown periods of time, we can simply sweep these people under the rug, ‘fix’ the product, and keep on makin’ money. Let’s go slidin’ down the slippery sequence slope of gene therapy straight to the Gates of hell».

With this phrase to be engraved in the history of the massive Covid vaccination campaign, the esteemed Canadian researcher, biochemist, immunologist and molecular biologist Jessica Rose (Source 1), author of multiple fundamental discoveries on the contamination of mRNA genetic sera, best describes the disturbing importance of an article published by University of Cambridge in relation to an enlightening scientific research which confirmed to the global scientific community the dangerous experimental use in the Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna mRNA vaccines of what we do not hesitate to define as the “Diabolical Molecule” because it is a biological human component modified twice in the laboratory. (Source 1).

UPDATE! Florida State Surgeon General Calls for Halt of mRNA Vaccines due to Dangerous, Oncogenes DNA Fragments
Author of multiple fundamental discoveries on the contamination of mRNA genetic sera, best describes the disturbing importance of an article published by University of Cambridgein relation to an enlightening scientific research which confirmed to the global scientific community the dangerous experimental use in the Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna mRNA vaccines of what we do not hesitate to define as the “Diabolical Molecule”because it is a biological human component modified twice in the laboratory.

Billions of Dangerous Spike DNA’s Molecules inside Covid mRNA Vaccines. They can Reproduce the Toxic Protein in Human Cells for a Long Time
This is the double alteration of Uridinetransformed into Pseudourine with the first synthetic biochemical alteration and then into N1-methylpseudouridine initialed “m1Ψ” as an acronym for N1-methyl-Ψ in which the Greek letter “Psi” was used to name Psueudoridine .

Uridine is an organic compound, nucleoside,made up of the coupling of a molecule of ribose and one of uracil. Uracil is one of the two pyrimidine nitrogenous bases that form the nucleotides of RNA nucleic acid.



This manipulation was designed by the Hungarian biochemist Katalin Karikó,awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize for Medicine precisely for having laid the foundations of mRNA vaccines, in order to “deceive” human cells into recognizing the synthetic mRNA as harmless human RNA …

I apologize to the biochemistry experts for any transcription mistakes I may make trying to translate from a difficult chemical language the portentous scientific essence of the abundant technical quotations in the article published by Rose on her Substack, from which we will only extrapolate its introduction.

Bombshell from US! FDA “Hides” Toxicity on DNA Fragments inside mRNA Vaccines despite Danger of Cancer Highlighted in its Guidance too
Martin: “Pseudouridine Killer in the Vaccines for Depopulation”
This analysis comes surprisingly providential as on Gospa News International we have just reported the summary of a conference by the famous patent expert David E. Martin in which he narrated in recent weeks the story of SARS-Cov-2 as a bacteriological weapon built in 58 years of military research on coronaviruses and that of mRNA vaccines, in his opinion, knowingly spread in a mass experiment for the search for vaccines against HIV-AIDS and cancer but also aimed at global depopulation.

WUHAN-GATES – 73. Half of Century of Covert Bioweapon Development Leading to Fauci’s SARS-Cov-2 and to mRNA Lethal Vaccines
In a very detailed article the American osteopath doctor Joseph Mercola wrote that «Martin points out that even if they don’t unleash any other bioweapons, the desired death toll may still be achieved, because they used pseudouridine in the mRNA shots, which is causing “turbo cancers”».

Because: «Pseudouridine suppresses cancer-controlling agents and promotes oncogenic activity in the body, and this has been known since 2018, so its inclusion was hardly an accident. It’s a conspiracy, alright. But not a conspiracy theory in the dismissive sense. It’s a global conspiracy by identifiable agents who have, for nearly 60 years, plotted to commit, and profit from, the greatest genocide the world has ever seen, while hiding behind the false veneer of “public health.”».
Well today, both the University of Cambridge and other authoritative scientists from around the world implicitly confirm that all those vaccinated with Covid mRNA with Moderna’s Spikevax and Pfizer-Biontech’s Comirnaty have been and continue to be unpaid and, above all, unaware human guinea pigs.

Precisely because of this altered nucleoside…

The Disturbing Article from Cambridge University
The comment by the researcher Rose that we reported in the incipit of the article referred to the text of the University of Cambridge(Source 2) in relation to the study “N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting” by Mulroney et al.published on December 6, 2023 by Nature after more than a month of review.



«Researchers redesign future mRNA therapeutics to prevent potentially harmful immune responses» is the eloquent title of the scientific text published by the British university.

«The latest developments, led by biochemist Professor Anne Willis and immunologist Dr James Thaventhiran from the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, build upon previous advances to ensure the prevention of any safety issues linked with future mRNA-based therapeutics. Their report is published today in the journal Nature» we read in the unsigned article.

«The researchers identified that bases with a chemical modification called N1-methylpseudouridine – which are currently contained in mRNA therapies – are responsible for the ‘slips’ along the mRNA sequence» adds the university website.
In collaboration with researchers at the Universities of Kent, Oxford and Liverpool, the MRC Toxicology Unit team«tested for evidence of the production of ‘off-target’ proteins in people who received the mRNA Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19. They found an unintended immune response occurred in one third of the 21 patients in the study who were vaccinated – but with no ill-effects, in keeping with the extensive safety data available on these COVID-19 vaccines».

SCIENCE Magazine Finally Admitted the mRNA Vaccines Dangerous Side Effects! Shots linked to Long Covid, Neurologic Damages and POTS
Despite disturbing the article already appears biased as it is aimed at “minimizing” the adverse reactions, even lethal one, that are accumulating in pharmacovigilance systems around the world, which have been confirmed by an alarming article in the journal Science, by the regulatory bodies from all over the world (EMA, FDA, etc.) and which led Moderna and Pfizer-Biontech to include the risk of lethal myocarditis in the information leaflets of their genetic drugs…

7 EURODEPUTATI CHIEDONO IL RITIRO DEI VACCINI COVID. Per Miocarditi Letali, Malori Improvvisi e Sicurezza Incerta nei Fragili
British Study: “Incorrect mRNA Translation may Increase Toxicity”
But it is the same authors of the study whose first signatory is Thomas E. Mulroney (Source 3), associate researcher of the Toxicology Unit of the MRC in Cambridge, who wrote the shocking considerations from a biochemical point of view in the conclusions.

«We show that 1-methylΨ is a modified ribonucleotide that significantly increases +1 ribosomal frameshifting during mRNA translation and that cellular immunity to +1 frameshifted products can occur following vaccination with mRNA containing 1-methylΨ. To our knowledge, this is the first report that mRNA modification affects ribosomal frameshifting. Alongside this impact on host T cell immunity, the off-target effects of ribosomal frameshifting could include increased production of new B cell antigens».




And they further add:

«These findings are of particular importance to our fundamental understanding of how ribonucleotide modification affects mRNA translation, and for designing and optimizing future mRNA-based therapeutics to avoid mistranslation events that may decrease efficacy or increase toxicity».
We will not delve further into the technical references but return to the analysis published by Jessica Rose in her Substack, making an extreme summary of it and advising professionals to read the text full of important images.

Billions of DNA Fragments of Toxic Spike Protein and SV40 gene in the mRNA Vaccines. New Study: “They may Cause Turbo-Cancer”
Let’s start with the comment added under the research published by Nature by her together with David Wiseman, L. Maria Gutschi, David J. Speicher, Kevin McKernan.

Alongside the Canadian biologist they were already co-authors of the study “DNA fragments detected in the monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: exploratory dose-response relationship with serious adverse events” which induced the EMA to confess that Pfizer hid the use of the very dangerous SV40 gene in its vaccine, which can cause tumors.

The same research encouraged the bioimmunologist Robert Malone to denounce the presence of the antibiotic resistance gene in the Moderna one, pointing out also that the pharmaceutical company was aware of the tumor risks of mRNA biotechnology as reported in its own patent.

Bomba Mondiale! “NEI VACCINI COVID GENE DI RESISTENZA AGLI ANTIBIOTICI”. Studio Spagnolo lo Conferma. Ministro Schillaci lo CELA nell’Allarme Morti AMR
We have written extensively about these topics in three investigations, one of which – on antibiotic resistance gene – is a world exclusive.

Alarm of American Scientists for the New Research
Let us therefore see the content of the comment by Rose and colleagues (Source 1)on Cambridge’s research:

The paper provides evidence for the formation “off-target” or unintended proteins following vaccination with BNT162b2 due to frameshifting. Given the proposed mechanism, a similar problem is likely to exist for the Moderna product.
While the authors have not isolated samples of these proteins from vaccinated patients or animals, their existence is evidenced by the specific cellular immune responses elicited to frameshifted proteins the authors synthesized. It is not clear why B cell – antibody responses were not studied.
The authors state that “Although there is no evidence that frameshifted products in humans generated from BNT162b2 vaccination are associated with adverse outcomes.”
BOMBSHELL: mRNA COVID jabs can Damage Children’s Immune Response to OTHER Viruses as well, Study finds
It is unclear how it is possible to make this statement, given:
• The small number of vaccinated subjects (n=21) providing samples.
• This was not a controlled trial.
• None of these subjects had reported undue effects of vaccination. Accordingly, the sample is subject to selection bias.
• The toxicology of these unintended proteins must be studied.
• The authors acknowledge the misdirected immunity “has huge potential to be harmful.”
Translated into simpler words, no one has verified the selection methods of the samples which may have been chosen precisely because they did not have serious adverse reactions.

SPIKE-DEMIC among Vaccinated: 83 % hit by PCVS Syndrome. Indian Study confirmed Gates, Big Pharma’s Health Disaster
Furthermore, in the interests of expertise we read that the two Cambridge scientists Thomas E. Mulroney and Anne E. Willis «are inventors of a pending patent application (2305297.0) relating to mRNA technology» while in the information on the authors it is discovered that Alexander J Mentzer works at the Wellcome Center for Human Genetics, University of Oxford.

Wellcome, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, is among the founders of the Ngo CEPI(Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations) which has already launched the SKYCovion vaccine together with the London-based GSK, managed by CEO Emma Walmsley who is also director of Microsoft, and SK Bioscience.

WUHAN-GATES – 73. BILL III A CACCIA DI CAVIE UMANE PER VACCINO COVID COREANO. “Genotossicità non Studiata” ma OMS & UK danno OK a SkyCovione con Spike Tossica e Adiuvante GSK da Pericoloso Squalene
But let’s go back to the analysis made by Jessica Rose on the Cambridge researchers’ study: «The authors write that N1-methylpseudouridine affects the fidelity of mRNA translation via ribosome stalling that induces frameshifting. Frameshifting results in the production multiple, unique and potentially aberrant proteins».

«The modified mRNAs for use in the COVID-19 products were codon-optimized for maximal protein expression in humans. Codon optimization, or synonymous codon replacement, rests on the idea that one can induce mutations throughout a gene of interest (like spike) based on an organism’s (like humans) codon usage bias, to increase translational efficiency and protein expression without altering the sequence of the protein. But, it is well-known that codon-optimization can lead to protein conformation, folding and stability problems».
COVID: SCOPERTA LA PROTEINA CHE RIVELA I LETALI COAGULI DI SANGUE. Ma Nessuno Indaga sulla Correlazione coi Vaccini
The Canadian immunologist further notes:

«Codon optimization could affect protein conformation, folding and stability, change post-translational modification sites and even affect protein function.Different rates of translation by different tRNAs, including those that exhibit wobble base-pairing (a tRNA that can recognize multiple synonymous codons) may actually be critical for determining the rate of translation. The ribosome may slow and pause during elongation which may actually be necessary for proper protein folding. Therefore, codon optimization may disrupt the fine-tuned timing of translation and ultimately protein function».
The Prophetic Seneff Study on Autoimmune and Neurocerebral Damage
He then refers to other studies that had reported the dangers of this biochemical manipulation (Source 1):

«Codon optimization can also lead to misfolding of mRNAs due to increased Guanine/Cytosine (GC content). Please read McKernan et al.’s preprint, Xia et al.’s paper and Seneff et al.’s paper to learn more about potential problems relating to codon optimization and GC content changes. The latter group write: Synonymous codon replacement also results in a change in the multifunctional regulatory and structural roles of resulting proteins».
ONE in THREE Covid Vaccinated with Neurological Complications. Alarming Study from Italian National Research Council
The risks to the human organism are clearly highlighted:

«There is, in fact, a significant enrichment of GC content (17% and 25% enrichments as per Pfizer and Moderna, respectively, as compared to SARS-CoV-2) as a result of the codon optimization that was done, and this can lead to “dysregulation of the G4-RNA-protein binding system and a wide range of potential disease-associated cellular pathologies including suppression of innate immunity, neurodegeneration, and malignant transformation”. Increased GC content significantly alters mRNA secondary structure as well, and this can also lead to ribosomal pausing or stalling».
These considerations were expressed in a study published by illustrious scientists such as Stephanie Seneff, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, Greg Nigh, Immersion Health, Portland, OR, USA, Anthony M. Kyriakopoulos, Nasco AD Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Research and Development, Piraeus, Greece and Peter A. McCullough, for Health Foundation, Tucson, AZ, USA, which was the subject of enormous censorship by specialized medical journals but we published in Gospa News thanks to an excellent summary by Dr. Mercola.

Dangerous RNA Manipulation with N1-methyl-Ψ
Below are the quotes from Seneff et al.(Source 4) useful for understanding the connection with uridine modified in N1-methyl-Ψ: «The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein».

«However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites. We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance».
The COVID Jabs’ Mechanisms of Injury: Sudden Death, Blood Cloths, Human Mad Cow and Autoimmune Diseases
In the study entitled “Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs” the scientists added:

«These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis. We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health».
The late biologist Luc Montagnier, in a study published posthumously by his research friends Jean-Claude Perez and Claire Moret-Chalmin with a review contribution from Seneff biophysics, proved without a shadow of a doubt the correlation between killer prions caused by vaccines and rapid deaths for neurocerebral Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, human mad cow disease.

PRIONS as KILLERS: 25 Deaths due to a New Mad-Cow from Covid Vaccines. Shocking Research by Montagnier (RIP), Perez & Moret-Chalmin on CJD Brain Damages
In detail Seneff and the other scientists also refer to specific alterations:

«Impaired type I IFN signaling is linked to many disease risks, most notably cancer, as type I IFN signaling suppresses proliferation of both viruses and cancer cells by arresting the cell cycle, in part through upregulation of p53, a tumor suppressor gene, and various cyclin- dependent kinase inhibitors (Musella et al., 2017; Matsuoka et al., 1998). IFNα also induces major histocompatibility (MHC) class 1 antigen presentation by tumor cells, causing them to be more readily recognized by the cancer surveillance system (Heise et al., 2016)».
They then delve into the problem of the uridine molecule.

To understand its importance we report a note from Rose: «Pseudouridines (Ψs) are a normal and essential part of our biology. They have been called the 5th nucleotide, in fact, and “are a ubiquitous constituent of structural RNA (transfer, ribosomal, small nuclear (snRNA) and small nucleolar), and present in coding RNA, across the three phylogenetic domains of life”and “accounts for about 1.4% of all bases in human rRNAs”».

“mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines are Like Gene Therapy Products” French Study highlighted Omitted Controls on Genotoxicity
Here’s what Seneff and his colleagues wrote about vaccines:

«A breakthrough came when it was discovered experimentally that the mRNA coding for the spike protein could be modified in specific ways that would essentially fool the human cells into recognizing it as harmless human RNA. A seminal paper by Karikó et al. (2005) demonstrated through a series of in vitro experiments that a simple modification to the mRNA such that all uridines were replaced with pseudouridine could dramatically reduce innate immune activation against exogenous mRNA».

Cancer Risk pointed out by the Nobel Inventor of mRNA Vaccines
Precisely for this discovery, Hungarian researcher Katalin Karikó, long-time at Biontech, recently received the Nobel Prize for Medicine together with her American colleague Drew Weissman, although both warned of the dangers of the new mRNA biotechnology.

Medicine Nobel to mRNA Covid Vaccines’ Scientists, both Sponsored by Gates, Fauci and Zuckerberg
In particular, on January 6, Karikó declared to the German newspaper Welt (Source 5):

«Every day I receive many emails from people who write to me about their experiences. One woman wrote to me that two days after the vaccination she developed a large lump in her breast. Vaccination caused cancer, it was her conclusion. But the cancer was already there, only vaccination gave an extra boost to the immune system, so that the immune defense cells rushed in large numbers towards the enemy».



The Gospa News investigations on Turbo-Cancer based now on seven published scientific studies have highlighted a very strong correlation between mRNA gene sera and the appearance or reactivation of tumor phenomena with abnormal degeneration resulting in lethal outcomes.

TURBO-CANCER – 2. Many Lethal/Serious Cases and New Researches on Covid mRNA Vaccines Risks. Melatonin Hope…
Karikó herself adds: «Vaccination provides a strong boost to the immune system. It can happen that a dormant infection breaks out in people with an already weakened immune system. The extent to which this is the case for shingles will need to be examined more closely».

Gospa News did so by discovering 27 thousand cases of Herpes Zoster, in the European Union only, as adverse reactions to vaccines reported by EMA pharmacovigilance database even in children, who are more exposed to damage to the natural immune system as confirmed by recent research.

Esclusivo! EPIDEMIA DI HERPES DOPO I VACCINI COVID. 27mila Casi nell’UE: 31 Morti da Zoster. Lo Studio: “Per danni al Sistema Immunitario”
Let’s go back to Seneff’s conclusions:

«Andries et al. (2015) later discovered that 1-methylpseudouridine as a replacement for uridine was even more effective than pseudouridine and could essentially abolish the TLR response to the mRNA, preventing the activation of blood-derived dendritic cells. This modification is applied in both the mRNA vaccines on the market (Park et al., 2021)».
To put it simply, the dendritic cell plays the role of sentinel and if it senses the presence of a pathogen in the body, it stimulates the immune response of B and T lymphocytes, specific against that antigen. If its action is limited or suppressed, it may become incapable of dealing with viral or bacterial enemies but also tumor dangers.

Critical Role of Pseudouridine in mRNA Vaccines
A study published by Pedro Morais, Director (Pseudouridylation Technology) ProQR Therapeutics, Leiden, Netherlands, and by Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Center for RNA Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, US, entitled “The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines” highlighted the fundamental role of the laboratory alteration of this protein in the Comirnaty and Spikevax genetic sera (source 6).

«Both consisted of N1-methyl-pseudouridine-modified mRNA encoding the SARS-COVID-19 Spike protein and were delivered with a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation. Because the delivery problem of ribonucleic acids had been known for decades, the success of LNPs was quickly hailed by many as the unsung hero of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines».
“European Medicines Agency Knew Toxicity of Pfizer Covid Vaccine”. Bombshell Study Published in US by an Italian BioChemist on Dangers mRNA-LNPs
But the scholars, one of whom has a clear conflict of interest because he is director of the Pseudouridylation Technology project, have highlighted another very interesting fact:

«However, the clinical trial efficacy results of the Curevac mRNA vaccine (CVnCoV) suggested that the delivery system was not the only key to the success. CVnCoV consisted of an unmodified mRNA (encoding the same spike protein as Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech’s mRNA vaccines) and was formulated with the same LNP as Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine (Acuitas ALC-0315).However, its efficacy was only 48%. This striking difference in efficacy could be attributed to the presence of a critical RNA modification (N1-methyl-pseudouridine) in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines (but not in CVnCoV)».
“Toxic Nanoforms inside Pfizer-Biontech Covid Vaccine”. Vital Study by Italian Biochemist on US Journal of Virology highlights an Alleged Crime
However, the same researchers highlight a significant note:

«The intrinsic immunogenicity of non-modified mRNA was once considered a potential advantage for its use in vaccines(Ishii and Akira, 2005) as it would encode the antigen and concomitantly serve as an adjuvant while permitting a low dose. In fact, the unmodified COVID-19 mRNA vaccine candidate in late-stage clinical trials (CVnCoV, developed by Curevac) had a maximum dose of 12 µg».
Curevac was developed by Curevac NV of Tubingen, together with the Ngo CEPI founded by Bill Gates with Wellcome and WEF, which initiated an authorization process before the CHMP committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) but withdrew it due to its low efficacy on October 12, 2021 (source 7) in view of the arrival of a new pharmacological product developed with GSK financed by Gates himself.

MINISTRO SCHILLACI SPECULA SU BIG PHARMA FINANZIATA DA GATES. €700mila Investiti in Biomediche USA che Testano anche Vaccini DNA Covid
Here is another cryptic phrase in which we talk about the “safety” of vaccines, implicitly implying that it is not clear in the current vaccines which therefore make all those who take them into “human guinea pigs”from the laboratory as the immunologist Rose clearly highlights in her final bioethical considerations.

Rose: “Unpredictable Health Effects of Manipulated Codons”
«Ehden Biber also wrote a great article about the pitfalls of codon optimization that you can read here. In a Nature article published in 2011 entitled: “Breaking the silence”, the author writes on the potential danger of fiddling with codons in therapeutic proteins whereby it “could have unpredictable effects on people’s health”»

Rose wrote in her comment on the Cambridge research quoting many sentences by scientific journalist Alla Katsnelson which we report below.

Bombshell! Texas Attorney General sues Pfizer on Covid Vaccine Efficacy and Conspiring
In detail, the Canadian researcher adds:

«She points to a study where the authors show that a synonymous codon change found in the most common form of cystic fibrosis results in mRNA misfolding. (Keep this in mind.) She also points out that in the context of the multi-drug resistance 1 gene (MDR1) (the gene that encodes P-glycoprotein), that a codon change may interfere with the pauses that characterize RNA passing through the ribosome, thereby changing how the growing amino acid chain folds».

«But perhaps the most timely and spine-tingly relevant statement in this article is found at the end, and I quote: “At the moment, companies developing recombinant therapies must verify that the DNA sequence designed by their scientists is the one that’s producing their proteins, but they aren’t required to note how different that is from the native genetic code”».
European Regulator: Pfizer Hid Dangerous Cancer Gene! It Kept Secret the SV40 DNA Sequence In COVID-19 Vaccine
We do not have any guidance with regard to the [DNA] sequence,” Kimchi-Sarfaty notes.

While it was the Italian bioimmunologist Mauro Mantovani who demonstrated how the “double Proline” inserted in mRNA vaccines makes the toxic Spike protein dangerously persistent in the human body.

«That’s one piece of data that could be tracked by the system she is proposing. Such knowledge, in turn, could ultimately help define better strategies for optimization and possibly even make biologic drugs safer for people» adds Alla Katsnelson while the immunologist asks herself a question:

«I wonder if the FDA ever took her advice to track the differences in codons and the resulting potential adverse effects?»
Covid Vaccines Killer Pathologies in a Name Only: Spikeopathy! Huge, Chilling Study on mRNA Genic Serums’ Serious Adverse Reactions
Therefore Rose quoted the article which we analyzed before:

«In addition to our comment on the Nature paper, a University of Cambridge write-up entitled: Researchers redesign future mRNA therapeutics to prevent potentially harmful immune responses was penned. They make it clear that the most relevant conclusion from the Nature paper is that we can make more products similarly insanely dangerous as the ones pumped into billions of bodies because we can simply ‘reduce the production of frameshifted products’ by ‘synonymous targeting of slippery sequences’».

So she wrote her milestone sentence:

«Well of course! Now that we know that billions of people’s cells might be making aberrant proteins, for unknown periods of time, we can simply sweep these people under the rug, ‘fix’ the product, and keep on makin’ money. Let’s go slidin’ down the slippery sequence slope of gene therapy straight to the Gates of hell».
Moderna AWARE that mRNA Jabs cause CANCER due to DNA Fragments. Malone Unveils Patent
The Canadian molecular biologist concludes before going into detail about a biochemical analysis that is too technical for non-experts:

«The manufacturers might have thought to explore options to prevent potentially harmful responses from their products prior to injecting billions of people with them. It is criminal that these products continue to be forced onto newborns and infants by mandate, to this day».
And then she report an emblematic quote about the risks of “Fooling with Mother Nature” by an evolutionary cell biologist at the University of Chicago: “Please do not monkey with these sites; they are optimized for some reason”, in reference to codon bias in mammals.

Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio

© COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS

prohibition of reproduction without authorization

follow Fabio Carisio Gospa News director on Twitter

follow Gospa News on Telegram

MAIN SOURCES

SOURCE 1 – JESSICA ROSE – That Substack about N1-methylpseudouridines and frameshifting

SOURCE 2 – UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE – Researchers redesign future mRNA therapeutics to prevent potentially harmful immune responses

SOURCE 3 – NATURE – N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting

SOURCE 4– PUBMED – Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs

SOURCE 5 – WELT – “Das ist der wirkliche Grund, warum man unter neuen Varianten nicht mehr so krank wird“

SOURCE 6 – FRONTIERS IN – The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

SOURCE 7 – EMA ends rolling review of CVnCoV COVID-19 vaccine following withdrawal by CureVac AG

Fabio G. C. Carisio

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

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

Most popolar investigation on VT is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

www.gospanews.net/





ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed

In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.



About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy

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







https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/bombshell-inside-mrna-vaccines-a-human-molecule-diabolically-altered/

Townhouse for sale in Antequera, Málaga
Impressive Manor House in the Heart of Antequera

Fantastically preserved, this manor house is decorated with quality Andalusian-style furniture and high-quality materials. An authentic treasure in a privileged location, it's a real gem that maintains all its essence while being adapted to modern times. The house is sunny and bright in all rooms.

Antequera enjoys the privileged position of being centrally located in Andalusia, offering easy access to all its capitals. Malaga airport is just 39 km away, with Córdoba and Granada each 100 km, and Seville 160 km. The property is set within the El Torcal Natural Park, an enclave declared a World Heritage site by UNESCO since 2016. Antequera, with a population of 41,000, thrives on olive tree and cereal cultivation, along with tourism boosted by the Torcal, the Dolmens, and its surroundings. This pleasant and quiet place also maintains rich traditions, including the Spring Fair, the August Fair, Holy Week, Christmas festivities, and more.

This incredible house spans 400m2, distributed over 3 floors, plus a roof terrace and a laundry/ironing room.

The ground floor comprises 2 large bedrooms, a fully equipped living-dining room-kitchen, 1 bathroom with a shower, and 1 patio. All areas are decorated with elegance and comfort in mind. The house also comes with an active tourist license.

The first floor houses a magnificent living-dining room furnished in style, with access to a fantastic sunny patio perfect for enjoyable breakfasts or dinners. The very bright, fully equipped kitchen features a large window with views of the patio and includes a pantry. There's also a large bedroom with two French balconies, and a bathroom.

A marble staircase leads up from the living room to the second floor, which consists of two double bedrooms with views of Antequera and two complete ensuite bathrooms. Also on this floor is a quiet space for reading, leisure, or work.

Access to the roof terrace is via well-preserved hardwood stairs from the second floor, offering fantastic views of Antequera. This space also serves as an auxiliary bedroom and includes washing and ironing areas.

The house is in perfect condition and features hot/cold air conditioning in all rooms, as well as a fireplace.

SOLD FURNISHED.

This is an excellent investment, suitable both as a family home and for tourist use (B&B), with an already granted license for the ground floor.

Price : 1.200000€

https://www.bluehorse.es/gb/terraced-house-in-antequera-with-views-gb1137136.html

Trusting Allah in Difficult Times
For Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah provide solace and guidance during difficult times. Islam teaches that life is a temporary test, where hardships strengthen faith, expiate sins, and help individuals become their best selves.

Trusting Allah in Difficult Times

In this journey of life, we often encounter trying times that test our strength, patience, and faith. When faced with adversity, finding strength and solace is something that many of us seek, and for us Muslims, the Quran and Sunnah serve as sources of comfort and guidance.

Islam presents us with a perspective that views this world as a temporal abode, where Allah tests His servants only to raise one’s level of faith when it wavers, to expiate their sins and to bring out the best version of themselves. It is important that Muslims draw on these resources within the rich tapestry of Islamic teachings in the face of adversity.

1. Remember That Allah Does Not Burden a Soul Beyond Its Capacity

Allah s.w.t. says in the Quran in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 286:

لَا يُكَلِّفُ ٱللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا ۚ لَهَا مَا كَسَبَتْ وَعَلَيْهَا مَا ٱكْتَسَبَتْ ۗ

“Allah does not require of any soul more than what it can afford. All good will be for its own benefit, and all evil will be to its own loss.”

This verse highlights the belief that Allah does not inflict nor impose a burden on a soul beyond its capacity and serves as a poignant reminder that His wisdom surpasses our comprehension and that the trials and obstacles we encounter are indefinitely tailored to our capabilities.

2. Keep in Mind that Allah Alone is Sufficient for Us, and He is the Best Protector

There is another profound Quranic verse that encapsulates and captures the essence of faith, dependence, and submission to God’s divine will. Muslims facing the trials and tribulations of life can turn to this potent verse nestled in Surah Ali-’Imran as a source of comfort and wise counsel.

Allah s.w.t. mentions in the Quran:

ٱلَّذِينَ قَالَ لَهُمُ ٱلنَّاسُ إِنَّ ٱلنَّاسَ قَدْ جَمَعُوا۟ لَكُمْ فَٱخْشَوْهُمْ فَزَادَهُمْ إِيمَـٰنًا وَقَالُوا۟ حَسْبُنَا ٱللَّهُ وَنِعْمَ ٱلْوَكِيلُ

“Those who were warned, “Your enemies have mobilised their forces against you, so fear them: the warning only made them grow stronger in faith, and they replied, “Allah (alone) is sufficient (as an aid) for us and (He) is the best Protector.”

(Surah Ali-’Imran, 3:173)

It was recorded in Sahih Al-Bukhari that Ibn ‘Abbas explains that the verse refers to the early Muslims who faced immense opposition from their opponent. Despite being warned that a massive army had gathered against them, their faith and trust in Allah s.w.t. only grew stronger. This rooted faith stemmed from their deep understanding of Allah’s power and omniscience.

Ibn Kathir also emphasised this concept of reliance on Allah s.w.t. and explained that the verse highlights the inherent strength and resilience that faith can bestow upon individuals. When faced with intimidation and threats, the true believers’ faith remains unshakable, and their trust in Allah s.w.t. is unwavering. Our Prophet Ibrahim a.s. also uttered the same words, “Allah (alone) is sufficient (as an aid) for us and (He) is the best Protector” and placed complete reliance on Allah s.w.t. when he was about to be thrown into a fire pit. As a result, he found coolness and tranquillity amidst the blazing fire.

Thus, these faith-inspiring words signify a deep acknowledgement that placing trust in Allah s.w.t. is the key to enduring and overcoming challenges and uncertainties, and it serves as a reminder to the believers that no matter the circumstances one is in, Allah’s care and provision are boundless. He is The Bestower and The Withholder of Mercy, and He, alone, is The Remover of harm and affliction.

The recurring utterance of “حَسْبُنَا ٱللَّهُ وَنِعْمَ ٱلْوَكِيلُ” reflects not only a verbal expression of trust in Allah but also serves as a profound embodiment of Islamic teachings. The phrase adds a layer of spiritual resilience as it invites one to maintain a positive outlook, trusting that Allah’s plan is ultimately for the best, even if the immediate circumstances may seem otherwise.

what does Allah say about hard times

Palestinians search a house after an Israeli air strike, in the city of Rafah, southern of the Gaza Strip, on October 15 2023.

This is evident in various media coverage of our Palestinian brothers and sisters, where their reliance on Allah s.w.t. (Tawakkal) and admirable patience (Sabr) serve as noteworthy and compelling examples for Muslims around the world. From those who had to pull their own family members out of the rubbles themselves, to the grandfather who forcefully opened the eyes of his granddaughter to take one final look at her face and to the thousands of innocent children whose childhoods are being robbed from them – all of them echoed with a little to no hesitation: Hasbunallah Wa Ni’mal-Wakil.

Their resilience becomes a source of inspiration, urging us to introspect and embody similar outlooks and coping mechanisms in our own lives.


Read: Navigating The Crisis In Gaza: A Guide by the Asatizah Youth Network

3. Be Patient

Another virtue within the teachings of Islam is the virtue of patience (Sabr), and it is held in high regard, constituting an integral element of faith. To be patient is not merely about tolerating adversity and equating it to complacency and resignation but rather about embracing it as an opportunity for advancement and strengthening one’s connection with Allah s.w.t. Patience in Islam is a dynamic and active principle that involves having to endure challenges in life with resilience and complete reliance on Allah s.w.t. while simultaneously engaging in constructive efforts to overcome them.

Allah s.w.t. says in the Quran:

وَاسْتَعِينُوا بِالصَّبْرِ وَالصَّلَاةِ ۚ وَإِنَّهَا لَكَبِيرَةٌ إِلَّا عَلَى الْخَاشِعِينَ

"O believers! Seek comfort in patience and prayer. Allah is truly with those who are patient."

(Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:153)

Read: Quranic Verses About Patience

4. Understand that Everything that Happens to a Believer is Good

The Prophet s.a.w. also said in a hadith:

مَا يُصِيبُ الْمُسْلِمَ مِنْ نَصَبٍ وَلاَ وَصَبٍ وَلاَ هَمٍّ وَلاَ حُزْنٍ وَلاَ أَذًى وَلاَ غَمٍّ حَتَّى الشَّوْكَةِ يُشَاكُهَا، إِلاَّ كَفَّرَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِنْ خَطَايَاهُ

"No fatigue, nor disease, nor sorrow, nor sadness nor hurt nor distress befalls a Muslim, even if it were the prick he receives from a thorn, but that Allah expiates some of his sins for that."

(Sahih Bukhari)

Every event in a believer’s life, even if it seems unfavourable, is ultimately considered good. Thus, as a true believer in times of prosperity, gratitude should blossom, and during periods of hardship, patience should take root. Such steadfast resilience, akin to ‘beautiful patience,’ was exemplified by our Prophets, who faced numerous challenges throughout their lives.

The Treaty Of Hudaybiyah is a key example; when faced with resistance to perform pilgrimage in Makkah, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. chose patience and proceeded to engage in negotiations. The resulting treaty may have seemed unfavourable at the time. However, it exemplified patience and trust in Allah’s will and decree, which eventually led to long-term peace and success for the Muslims.

Read: 4 Things to Know about The Story of Hudaibiyah

5. Comprehend Allah’s Attributes

how to trust Allah

That said, it is almost impossible to trust and rely entirely on Allah s.w.t. without knowledge of who He is. To truly know Allah is to delve into an understanding and acknowledgement of His Divine names and attributes, such as Al-Hafiz (The Guardian), Al-’Azim (The Most Great) and Al-Qadir (The All-Powerful). Comprehending these attributes fosters a more rooted sense of trust in Allah s.w.t. and His plans and distinguishes anxiety and worries about the unknown.

Therefore, the deeper our awareness of The Almighty, the stronger our certainty in Him, our love towards Him and consequently, the greater our reliance on Him – this is the essence of Tawakkul. In return, it will help us put everything, whether good or bad, into the proper perspective.

References:

Al-Quran Ibn Kathir Tafsir| Alim.org. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/3/169/

Bonab, B. G., & Koohsar, A. A. H. (2011, January 1). Reliance on God as a Core Construct of Islamic Psychology. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.043

Parrott, J. (2020, March 23). When Our Worlds Are Shaken: Finding Strength in ‘Beautiful Patience.’ Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/when-our-worlds-are-shaken-finding-strength-in-beautiful-patience

Riyad as-Salihin 76 - The Book of Miscellany - كتاب المقدمات - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:76

Tahir. (2020, April 2). In Hardship and in Ease: How to Rely on God | Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://yaqeeninstitute.org/read/paper/in-hardship-and-in-ease-how-to-rely-on-god

What Does Tawakkul Mean? (2020, June 3). Retrieved from https://muslim.sg/articles/tawakkul-meaning

Listen to our Podcasts!

https://muslim.sg/articles/trusting-allah-in-difficult-times

Transform theory is the study of transforms, which relate a function in one domain to another function in a second domain. The essence of transform theory is that by a suitable choice of basis for a vector space a problem may be simplified or diagonalized as in spectral theory - https://kudosmash.postach.io/

Chris Hedges: The Enemy From Within
April 30, 2023

You Are What They Eat – by Mr. Fish
By Chris Hedges / Original to ScheerPost

America is a stratocracy, a form of government dominated by the military. It is axiomatic among the two ruling parties that there must be a constant preparation for war. The war machine’s massive budgets are sacrosanct. Its billions of dollars in waste and fraud are ignored. Its military fiascos in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East have disappeared into the vast cavern of historical amnesia. This amnesia, which means there is never accountability, licenses the war machine to economically disembowel the country and drive the Empire into one self-defeating conflict after another. The militarists win every election. They cannot lose. It is impossible to vote against them. The war state is a Götterdämmerung, as Dwight Macdonald writes, “without the gods.”

Since the end of the Second World War, the federal government has spent more than half its tax dollars on past, current and future military operations. It is the largest single sustaining activity of the government. Military systems are sold before they are produced with guarantees that huge cost overruns will be covered. Foreign aid is contingent on buying U.S. weapons. Egypt, which receives some $1.3 billion in foreign military financing, is required to devote it to buying and maintaining U.S. weapons systems. Israel has received $158 billion in bilateral assistance from the U.S. since 1949, almost all of it since 1971 in the form of military aid, with most of it going towards arms purchases from U.S. weapons manufacturers. The American public funds the research, development and building of weapons systems and then buys these same weapons systems on behalf of foreign governments. It is a circular system of corporate welfare.

Between October 2021 and September 2022, the U.S. spent $877 billion on the military, that’s more than the next 10 countries, including China, Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom combined. These huge military expenditures, along with the rising costs of a for-profit healthcare system, have driven the U.S. national debt to over $31 trillion, nearly $5 trillion more than the U.S.’s entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This imbalance is not sustainable, especially once the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency. As of January 2023, the U.S. spent a record $213 billion servicing the interest on its national debt.

The public, bombarded with war propaganda, cheers on their self-immolation. It revels in the despicable beauty of our military prowess. It speaks in the thought-terminating clichés spewed out by mass culture and mass media. It imbibes the illusion of omnipotence and wallows in self-adulation.

Support our Independent Journalism — Donate Today!

The intoxication of war is a plague. It imparts an emotional high that is impervious to logic, reason or fact. No nation is immune. The gravest mistake made by European socialists on the eve of the First World War was the belief that the working classes of France, Germany, Italy, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia and Great Britain would not be divided into antagonistic tribes because of disputes between imperialist governments. They would not, the socialists assured themselves, sign on for the suicidal slaughter of millions of working men in the trenches. Instead, nearly every socialist leader walked away from their anti-war platform to back their nation’s entry into the war. The handful who did not, such as Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to prison.

A society dominated by militarists distorts its social, cultural, economic and political institutions to serve the interests of the war industry. The essence of the military is masked with subterfuges — using the military to carry out humanitarian relief missions, evacuating civilians in danger, as we see in the Sudan, defining military aggression as “humanitarian intervention” or a way to protect democracy and liberty, or lauding the military as carrying out a vital civic function by teaching leadership, responsibility, ethics and skills to young recruits. The true face of the military — industrial slaughter — is hidden.

The mantra of the militarized state is national security. If every discussion begins with a question of national security, every answer includes force or the threat of force. The preoccupation with internal and external threats divides the world into friend and foe, good and evil. Militarized societies are fertile ground for demagogues. Militarists, like demagogues, see other nations and cultures in their own image – threatening and aggressive. They seek only domination.

It was not in our national interest to wage war for two decades across the Middle East. It is not in our national interest to go to war with Russia or China. But militarists need war the way a vampire needs blood.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev and later Vladimir Putin lobbied to be integrated into western economic and military alliances. An alliance that included Russia would have nullified the calls to expand NATO — which the U.S. had promised it would not do beyond the borders of a unified Germany — and have made it impossible to convince countries in eastern and central Europe to spend billions on U.S. military hardware. Moscow’s requests were rebuffed. Russia was made the enemy, whether it wanted to be or not. None of this made us more secure. Washington’s decision to interfere in Ukraine’s domestic affairs by backing a coup in 2014 triggered a civil war and Russia’s subsequent invasion.

But for those who profit from war, antagonizing Russia, like antagonizing China, is a good business model. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin saw their stock prices increase by 40 percent and 37 percent respectively as a result of the Ukraine conflict.

A war with China, now an industrial giant, would disrupt the global supply chain with devastating effects on the U.S. and global economy. Apple produces 90 percent of its products in China. U.S. trade with China was $690.6 billion last year. In 2004, U.S. manufacturing output was more than twice China’s. China’s output is now nearly double that of the United States. China produces the largest number of ships, steel and smartphones in the world. It dominates the global production of chemicals, metals, heavy industrial equipment and electronics. It is the world’s largest rare earth mineral exporter, its greatest reserve holder and is responsible for 80 percent of its refining worldwide. Rare earth minerals are essential to the manufacture of computer chips, smartphones, television screens, medical equipment, fluorescent light bulbs, cars, wind turbines, smart bombs, fighter jets and satellite communications.

War with China would result in massive shortages of a variety of goods and resources, some vital to the war industry, paralyzing U.S. businesses. Inflation and unemployment would rocket upwards. Rationing would be implemented. The global stock exchanges, at least in the short term, would be shut down. It would trigger a global depression. If the U.S. Navy was able to block oil shipments to China and disrupt its sea lanes, the conflict could potentially become nuclear.

In “NATO 2030: Unified for a New Era,” the military alliance sees the future as a battle for hegemony with rival states, especially China. It calls for the preparation of prolonged global conflict. In October 2022, Air Force General Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, presented his “Mobility Manifesto” to a packed military conference. During this unhinged fearmongering diatribe, Minihan argued that if the U.S. does not dramatically escalate its preparations for a war with China, America’s children will find themselves “subservient to a rules based order that benefits only one country [China].”

According to the New York Times, the Marine Corps is training units for beach assaults, where the Pentagon believes the first battles with China may occur, across “the first island chain” that includes, “Okinawa and Taiwan down to Malaysia as well as the South China Sea and disputed islands in the Spratlys and the Paracels.”.

Militarists drain funds from social and infrastructure programs. They pour money into research and development of weapons systems and neglect renewable energy technologies. Bridges, roads, electrical grids and levees collapse. Schools decay. Domestic manufacturing declines. The public is impoverished. The harsh forms of control the militarists test and perfect abroad migrate back to the homeland. Militarized Police. Militarized drones. Surveillance. Vast prison complexes. Suspension of basic civil liberties. Censorship.

Those such as Julian Assange, who challenge the stratocracy, who expose its crimes and suicidal folly, are ruthlessly persecuted. But the war state harbors within it the seeds of its own destruction. It will cannibalize the nation until it collapses. Before then, it will lash out, like a blinded cyclops, seeking to restore its diminishing power through indiscriminate violence. The tragedy is not that the U.S. war state will self-destruct. The tragedy is that we will take down so many innocents with us.

NOTE TO SCHEERPOST READERS FROM CHRIS HEDGES: There is now no way left for me to continue to write a weekly column for ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show without your help. The walls are closing in, with startling rapidity, on independent journalism, with the elites, including the Democratic Party elites, clamoring for more and more censorship. Bob Scheer, who runs ScheerPost on a shoestring budget, and I will not waver in our commitment to independent and honest journalism, and we will never put ScheerPost behind a paywall, charge a subscription for it, sell your data or accept advertising. Please, if you can, sign up at chrishedges.substack.com so I can continue to post my now weekly Monday column on ScheerPost and produce my weekly television show, The Chris Hedges Report.


Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times, where he served as the Middle East Bureau Chief and Balkan Bureau Chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for The Dallas Morning News, The Christian Science Monitor, and NPR. He is the host of show The Chris Hedges Report.

He was a member of the team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for The New York Times coverage of global terrorism, and he received the 2002 Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. Hedges, who holds a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School, is the author of the bestsellers American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle and was a National Book Critics Circle finalist for his book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. He writes an online column for the website ScheerPost. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University and the University of Toronto.

https://scheerpost.com/2023/04/30/chris-hedges-the-enemy-from-within/

A Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran is Contemplated
The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking


Introduction

We stand in Solidarity with Palestine. But we must recognize that the United States Military and Intelligence apparatus is firmly behind Israel’s genocide directed against the People of Palestine.

.

And this must be part of the solidarity campaign, namely to Reveal the Truth regarding Washington’s insidious role, which is part of a carefully planned military agenda directed against Palestine and the broader Middle East. Netanyahu is a proxy, with a criminal record. He has the unbending support of Western Europe’s “Classe politique”.

.

The U.S. led War on the People of Palestine and the Middle East is a Criminal Undertaking

Israel and the Zionist lobby in the U.S. are NOT exerting undue influence AGAINST U.S. Foreign Policy as outlined by numerous analysts.

Quite the opposite. The Zionist lobby is firmly aligned with U.S. foreign policy, and Vice Versa. It targets those who are opposed to war, who call for a cease fire. It exerts influence in favour of the conduct of the U.S. military agenda in support of Israel.



The US military-intelligence establishment in coordination with powerful financial interests is calling the shots in regards to Israel’s genocidal intent to “Wipe Palestine off the Map”.

.

America’s Military Doctrine: Deliberately Targeting and Killing Civilians

The targeting of civilians and the killing of children in Gaza is modelled on numerous US sponsored massacres of civilians (1945-2023) including the 2004 attack on Fallujah. (More than 30 Million mainly civilian deaths in US-led wars in what is euphemistically called the “post War Era”).
.

Veteran War correspondent Felicity Arbuthnot reflected on the indescribable barbarity of the 2004 Fallujah massacre, which resulted in countless deaths and destruction. It was a genocide conducted by the U.S military:
.

“The Americans invaded, chillingly: “house to house, room to room”, raining death and destruction on the proud, ancient “City of Mosques.”

Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard …

One correspondent wrote: “There has been nothing like the attack on Fallujah since the Nazi invasion and occupation of much of the European continent – the shelling and bombing of Warsaw in September 1939, the terror bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940.”



Fallujah, 2004

.

The U.S. is supportive of the Israeli genocide directed against the people of Palestine. Prime Minister Netanyahu is a criminal. He is Washington’s proxy, unreservedly endorsed and supported by the Biden Administration as well as the U.S. Congress.

.

Zionism constitutes the ideological underpinnings of contemporary U.S. imperialism and its unending war against the people of the Middle East.

.

The Zionist “Greater Israel” dogma –as in all wars of religion since the dawn of mankind– is there to mislead people Worldwide as to “who is really pulling the strings”.

.

Zionism has become a useful instrument which is embodied in U.S. military doctrine. The “Promised Land” broadly coincides with America’s hegemonic agenda in the Middle East, namely what the U.S. military has designated as the “New Middle East”.

.

Cui Bono: “To Whom Does it Benefit”

There are strategic, geopolitical and economic objectives behind Israel’s genocide directed against the people of Palestine. “Crimes are often committed to benefit their perpetrators”: Israel’s War against the People of Palestine serves the interests of Big Money, the Military Industrial Complex, Corrupt Politicians…

The Genocide is implemented by Netanyahu on behalf of the United States.

The US military and intelligence apparatus are behind Israel’s criminal bombing and invasion of Gaza. The unfolding Middle East War is largely directed against Iran.

.

.

Iran and the Nuclear Issue

Historical Antecedents. Using Israel As a Means to Attacking Iran

In 2003, the war on Iran project (Operation Theatre Iran Near Term, TIRANNT)) was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 15 years.

Let us recall that at the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America. And that Israel would, so to speak,

“be doing the bombing for us” [paraphrase] , without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”. For further details see my article below was first published by Global Research in May 2005, as well as PBS Interview with Z. Brzezinski

This Dick Cheney-style option is currently (November 2023) once more on the drawing board of the Pentagon, namely the possibility that Israel which is already bombing Lebanon and Syria, would be incited to wage an attack on Iran (acting on behalf of the United States).

US Congress Resolution (H. RES. 559) Accuses Iran of Possessing Nuclear Weapons

Careful timing: In June 2023, the US House of Representatives adopted Resolution (H. RES. 559) which provides a “Green Light” to wage war on Iran.

The US House passed a resolution that allows the use of force against Iran, intimating without a shred of evidence that Iran has Nuclear Weapons:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives declares it is the policy of the United States—

(1) that a nuclear Islamic Republic of Iran is not acceptable;

(2) that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon under any circumstances or conditions;

(3) to use all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon; and

(4) to recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Click below to access the complete text of H. RES 559



Israel’s Undeclared Nuclear Weapons Arsenal

Whereas Iran is tagged (without evidence) as a Nuclear Power by the U.S. House of Representatives, Washington fails to acknowledge that Israel is an undeclared nuclear power.

In recent developments, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, “admitted to the world that Israel has nuclear weapons ready to be used against Palestinians”

The Times of Israel reported that: “Amichai Eliyahu said Sunday [November 5, 2023] that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”

Video on Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Facility

English subtitles



.

.

The War on Energy

Unspoken Objective of a US-NATO-Israel War against Iran: Natural Gas

Reserves of Natural Gas: Iran ranks Second after Russia. Russia, Iran and Qatar possess 54.1 percent of the World’s reserves of natural gas.

-Russia 24.3%,

-Iran 17.3%,

-Qatar, 12.5 % (in partnership with Iran)

versus

-5.3 % for the US

President Joe Biden ordered to “blow up” (September 2022) the Nordstream Pipeline, which constitutes a U.S. Act of War against the European Union.

In the words of Joe Biden:

“There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2”. Statement at White House Press Conference (February 7, 2022)

America’s strategic objective was, despite its meagre reserves of natural gas:

To Force the European Union to buy LNG “Made in America”.

What this implies is that America’s military agenda against Russia and Iran constitutes a means to hike up EU energy prices, which is an act economic warfare against the People of Europe.






The Iran-Qatar Natural Gas Partnership

The maritime gas reserves of the Persian Gulf are under a (joint ownership) partnership between Qatar and Iran (See diagram below).





The Biden Administration is Intent upon Destabilizing the Iran-Qatar Partnership

This partnership is supportive of the People of Palestine.

In March 2022, “President Joe Biden following a meeting with Qatar’s Emir Sheik Tamim “designated Qatar as a major non-NATO ally of the United States, fulfilling the promise that he had made to Qatar earlier this year [2022], the White House said” Reuters



“The designation is granted by the United States to close, non-NATO allies that have strategic working relationships with the U.S. military.

Biden promised Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, in January [2022] during a meeting at the White House that he would grant Qatar the special status.” Reuters See also followup Reuters article.

What is at stake are cross-cutting coalitions. Qatar is a “Partner” of Iran in relation to the strategic reserves of maritime gas in the Persian Gulf. There is no formaI military cooperation between the two countries.

Washington’s unspoken agenda is to break and/or destabilize Qatar’s Partnership with Iran, by integrating Qatar into the US-NATO military orbit.

It is worth noting that a few days prior to the October 7, 2023 Hamas operation, the Emir of Qatar Sheik Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani “laid the foundation stone for the Northern Dome expansion project” in Iran’s Pars South Field (See map above).

“the Emir of Qatar said the groundbreaking for the Northern Dome expansion project was laid today, which is in line with Qatar’s strategy to strengthen its position as a global LNG producer …

This joint gas field, known as “South Pars” in Iran, is the largest natural gas field in the world and contains 50.97 trillion cubic meters of gas and about 7.9 billion cubic meters of natural gas condensate.

At the time of writing, the implications of Qatar’s “Special Status” Military Alliance with the U.S. remain unclear.

America’s Al-Udeid military base in Qatar (left) is the largest US base in the Middle East.

Have the status and functions of Al Udeid changed since the signing of the March 2022 agreement designating Qatar as a “Major Non NATO Ally of the US”

Qatar is both A Partner of Iran as well as a Major Non NATO Ally of the U.S. Reports confirm the development of a close relationship between the commanders of the US Air Force and the Qatari Emiri Air Force.

Qatar is a “Powder Keg”?

The U.S. foreign policy objective is to ultimately destroy and undermine that “friendship” with Iran which is highly valued and supported by Qatari citizens.

The export of gas from South Pars North Dome transits through Iran, Turkey and Russia.

Qatar, Russia and Iran (the 3 largest holders Worldwide of natural gas reserves) reached an agreement in 2009 to create a ‘Gas Troika’, a trilateral gas cooperation entity including the development of joint projects.

A large number of countries including South Korea, India, Japan, China are importing LNG from Qatar.

Last year (November 2022), “QatarEnergy signed a 27-year deal to supply China’s Sinopec with liquefied natural gas”. Qatar has also a strategic alliance with China.

Washington’s objective under the disguise of America’s “Major Non-NATO Alliance” with Qatar is to:

Break the Qatar-Iran Partnership
Exclude Iran from the Joint Maritime Gas Field
Exert US Control over the Maritime Gas Field in the Persian Gulf
Weaken and Disable the “Gas Troika” (Russia, Iran, Qatar)
Create Chaos in the Global Energy Market,
Undermine the Trade in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) to Numerous Countries
.

Iran. Third Largest Reserves of Oil Worldwide

Iran is not only second in terms of its gas reserves after Russia, it ranks third Worldwide in relation to its oil reserves (12% of Worldwide oil reserves) versus a meagre 4% for the U.S.








The Ben Gurion Canal Project

.

U.S. Seeks Dominance over Strategic International Waterways

The Ben Gurion Canal Project was initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.

The Ben Gurion Canal project is currently contemplated as means control the channels of international maritime trade to the detriment of the people of the Middle East. It also seeks to destabilize China’s maritime commodity trade.



In the context of the broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”.

According to Yvonne Ridley:

“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza. As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)

The U.S led war is intent upon confiscating all Palestinian territories, which would be appropriated by the State of Israel, acting as a strategic “Anglo-American Hub” in the Middle East:

The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.

Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.

Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.

Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)

.

“Greater Israel”.

Strategic “Anglo-American Hub”

The Promised Land of Greater Israel coincides with America’s Colonial Design in the Middle East

The Greater Israel design is not strictly a Zionist Project for the Middle East, it is an integral part of US foreign policy, its strategic objective is to extend US hegemony as well as fracture and balkanize the Middle East.

In this regard, Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy –which is consistent with the Greater Israel– is accompanied by a process of political fragmentation.



Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey



“The New Middle East”: Unofficial US Military Academy Map by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

.

“America’s Promised Land”. Global Warfare

When viewed in the current context, including the siege on Gaza, the Zionist Plan for the Middle East coincides with America’s long war against the Middle East. As we mentioned earlier the Zionist agenda provides an ideological and religious justification of America’s long war against the Middle East.

The 1979-80. the so-called Soviet Afghan War, engineered by the CIA
The 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War engineered by the U.S.
The 1991 Gulf War against Iraq,
The 2001 The US-NATO Invasion of Afghanistan,
The 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The 2006 War on Lebanon,
The Arab Spring,
The 2011 war on Libya,
The 2015 war on Yemen
Obama’s 2014-2017 “Counter-Terrorism” Operation against Iraq and Syria
The ongoing wars against Syria, Iraq and Yemen
The “Greater Israel” project consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of a US-Israeli expansionist project, with the support of NATO.

Needless to day, the ideological and religious underpinnings of the “Greater Israel” project are consistent with America’s imperial design.

While the Zionist agenda is not the driving force, it serves the useful purpose of misleading public opinion concerning America’s long war against the people of the Middle East.

The Historical Context: A Sequence of Military Plans and Scenarios to Wage War on Iran

Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT) war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified doc), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage.

TIRANNT was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.

Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Israel does not act without Washington’s approval.

U.S.-Israeli Air Defense

Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.

The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would

“integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.” (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )

What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:

”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

At the outset of Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel.

And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated.

According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.

Of utmost relevance:

Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.

In practice, a war on Iran, would be a joint US-NATO-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.

Michel Chossudovsky, October 31, 2017, November 11, 2023

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by

Michel Chossudovsky

May 2005

At the outset of Bush’s second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”:

“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to “set Israel loose” to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not “encouraging Israel”. What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (see Seymour Hersh)

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

“A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. ‘It is getting quite scary.'” (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003)

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran’s nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger “regime change” in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor).

Bush advisers believe that the “Iranian opposition movement” will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 “smart air launched weapons” including some 500 BLU 109 ‘bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than “adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster“:

“Given Israel’s already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement.” (See Richard Bennett)

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”. (See W Madsen)

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, see also this)

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are “safe for civilians”. Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Michel Chossudovsky)

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas)

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

“To attack Iran’s nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran.” (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible “scenario” at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

“We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don’t think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that.” ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Iran’s Military Capabilities

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; “they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success.” (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005).

It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran’s armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by Ukraine. Iran’s air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

The US “Military Road Map”

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World’s reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world’s oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil)

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade both Iraq and Iran:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil. (USCENTCOM, USPolicy , emphasis added)

Main Military Actors

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.

Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See this)

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are “in a state of readiness” and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter’s observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives

In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel’s IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and “anti-terror maneuvers” together with several Arab countries.

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery)

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as “the appointment of the right man at the right time.” The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz’s appointment was specifically linked to Israel’s Iran agenda: “As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario.”

March 2005: NATO’s Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel’s military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to “enhance Israel’s deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria.” The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

“The more Israel’s image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel’s links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey’s impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel’s operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. ” (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an “initial authorization” by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”. (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.

US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and “unconnected to events in the Middle East”: “As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises.” (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld (right) was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.”

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran’s North-Western border. US military bases described as “mobile groups” in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to “neutralize Iran”. The longer term objective under the Pentagon’s “Caspian Plan” is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing “American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

“Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku.” ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld’s visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami’s to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan’s Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of “The Shanghai Five” military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.

Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials “is not being tough enough on Iran…” Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. (See VOA). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions.”

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated “Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator” (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as “a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World’s most deadly “conventional” weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release)

Late April 2005- early May: Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (right) in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.

Iran Surrounded

The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.



Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

“since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches – Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries… Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran’s reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory.” (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

Concluding remarks

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. (“they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground”)

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.

Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Antiwar Movement

The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are “committed to their safety and well-being”. Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the “war on terrorism” and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.

Israel’s Nuclear Capabilities

With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World’s 5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly recognized as such.

Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world’s most sophisticated, largely designed for “war fighting” in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are “neutron bombs,” miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow…

The bombs themselves range in size from “city busters” larger than the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any conceivable need for “deterrence.”

Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region’s states to each seek their own “deterrent.”

Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel’s nuclear strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.

From John Steinbach, Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal, Global Research



https://www.globalresearch.ca/planned-us-israeli-attack-on-iran-2/5615443