• It's Time To YELL At The U.S. Government
    Tell the Office for Global Affairs exactly what you really think of the proposed "Pandemic Agreement." Submit your written comments by Monday, January 22, 2024. GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM!

    James Roguski

    Share

    Leave a comment

    WORLDWIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED “PANDEMIC AGREEMENT” HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS

    PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW…



    OFFICIAL DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE HERE

    EVERYONE ON EARTH is invited to submit your written comments via email to OGA.RSVP@hhs.gov before 5pm Eastern time on Monday, January 22, 2024 with the subject line:

    “Written Comment Re: Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the WHO Pandemic Agreement”

    The most recent Negotiating Text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (Negotiating Text) can be found here:

    https://apps.who.int/​gb/​inb/​pdf_​files/​inb7/​A_​INB7_​3-en.pdf

    Please take the time to copy the comment that you submit and post it in the comment section below…

    Leave a comment

    You can take the easy way out, and CLICK HERE to send a pre-written email, but I strongly encourage you to really put in the effort to let the Office for Global Affairs know what you really think!

    I encourage you to record a video (LIKE THESE) and include a link to your video in your email.


    FALSE ASSUMPTION #1:

    The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to answer a series of questions that assume that we want a “Pandemic Agreement” to be negotiated. They assume that we want “rapid creation and equitable deployment of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.”

    FALSE ASSUMPTION #2:

    The proposed negotiating text of the “Pandemic Agreement” that was published on October 30, 2023 is already out of date. A new version is being written as we speak and is due to be available in February 2024. The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to comment on what is already an old version of the proposed agreement.

    THESE ARE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT MUST BE CHALLENGED

    FEEL FREE TO COPY MY LETTER AND DECLARATION AND EDIT IT TO MAKE IT YOUR OWN:

    My letter to the Office of Global Affairs:


    My thoughts are best summarized in this video:

    https://www.bitchute.com/video/68noiys4ufyP/

    and this website: http://ThePeoplesDeclaration.com

    The Office for Global Affairs MUST HEED the 33,884 comments that were submitted to the World Health Organization in April 2022:

    https://inb.who.int/home/public-hearings/first-round

    https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-first-round-public-hearings-written-contributions.xlsx?sfvrsn=275459d6_7

    The Office for Global Affairs MUST ALSO HEED the hundreds of video comments submitted to the World Health Organization by INDIVIDUALS in September 2022:

    https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-public-hearings---video-list-(final).pdf?sfvrsn=242677f2_3

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glXnQDeIOf8

    The United States government should develop the software for a GLOBALLY AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE interactive forum/database for ALL types of health care practitioners to share their clinical experiences and observations IN REAL TIME WITHOUT CENSORSHIP OF ANY KIND regarding all diseases so that everyone on earth can access the wisdom of absolutely all the health professionals in the world for free.

    The tens of billions of dollars that might potentially be spent on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response would be much better spent ensuring that safe, potable drinking water and sanitary removal of waste water be provided for everyone on earth.

    *****

    STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS

    These negotiations are in regards to what is essentially a trade dispute masquerading as a health issue that is beyond the competency of the World Health Organization.

    Health care is NOT an enumerated authority of the federal government. You have zero lawful authority regarding health. Health care is an issue that must be controlled by the 50 states as directed by the people of each state.

    These negotiations MUST be terminated immediately.

    Before any international agreement is to even be considered, a full reckoning of mistakes made, and crimes committed over the past five years MUST occur.

    No treaty, agreement, framework convention, amendments to the existing International Health Regulations or any other international instrument is needed, nor is one desired.

    Any agreement in the form of an open-ended "Framework Convention" MUST BE REJECTED.

    I DO NOT SUPPORT AND I ACTIVELY OPPOSE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL, HOSPITAL, EMERGENCY, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (PHEIC).

    The search for "pathogens with pandemic potential" and the plan to build a global laboratory network to facilitate genetic sequencing is a thinly veiled disguise for bioweapons research.

    The use of Midazolam, ventilators, Run-Death-Is-Near, Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, and most other pharmaceutical interventions has been an absolute health and financial disaster for everyone except the pharmaceutical industry.

    Any discussion of, or any attempt to control or even monitor our unalienable right to free speech must be opposed and destroyed in its entirety. The WHO, the FDA and the CDC are the true source of the “infodemic” and they are the greatest providers of mis, dis and mal information.

    The mRNA platform and the coercion used to implement it has been such an absolute disaster that those who promoted and implemented it are guilty of crimes against humanity.

    STOP THE SHOTS!

    STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS

    EXIT THE WHO


    The People's Declaration

    The People's Declaration
    Share this link: ThePeoplesDeclaration.com

    Read full story


    Additional information:

    https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/explainer-whos-pandemic-agreement-threatens-national-sovereignty-free-speech-and-life

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

    Question: If I submitted an email, but then I thought of something else that I wanted to say, can I submit another email?

    Answer: YES.


    Question: If I missed the deadline, can I still submit an email after the deadline has passed?

    Answer: Yes. Here is what the Office for Global Affairs said: “Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.”

    Federal Register Notice:

    The United States has expressed support for the development of an international instrument to protect the world from pandemic health threats now and in the future, and in a more rapid and equitable manner.

    The United States is seeking the following key outcomes in the negotiations:

    Enhance the capacity of countries around the world to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemic emergencies and provide clear, credible, consistent information to their citizens.

    Ensure that all countries share data and laboratory samples from emerging outbreaks quickly, safely, and transparently to facilitate response efforts and inform public health decision making regarding effective disease control measures, including the rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.

    Support more equitable and timely access to, and delivery of, vaccines, diagnostic tests, treatments, and other mitigation measures to quickly contain outbreaks, reduce illness and death, and minimize impacts on the economic and national security of people around the world.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of State are charged with co-leading the U.S. delegation to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

    This Request for Comments procedure is designed to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help inform the U.S. government negotiating position, including new approaches, proposals, or concerns with the current version of the negotiating text.

    Stakeholders are invited to provide comments on any and all issues raised by the negotiating text.

    For foreign-based entities, please specify country/ies in which the institution or organization is headquartered; if your institution or organization is a potential provider of pandemic-related products or services, please specify the types of products or services with which you are commonly associated or seeking to develop.

    All personal identifying information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible.

    To the extent commenters choose to comment on specific provisions of the negotiating text, it is helpful to reference any articles or sub-articles being addressed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Kim,

    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Global Affairs, Office of the Secretary, HHS, Room (639H) Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, (202) 235–3537.


    Notice And Request For Comments

    237KB ∙ PDF file

    Download
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-12-22/pdf/2023-28341.pdf

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/22/2023-28341/notice-and-request-for-comments-on-the-implications-of-access-and-benefit-sharing-abs

    LEARN MORE…

    Informed-Dissent.com

    StopTheGlobalAgenda.com

    ThePeoplesDeclaration.com

    ExitTheWHO.org

    ExitTheWHO.com

    RejectTheAmendments.com

    StopTheAmendments.com

    StopTheWHO.com

    ScrewTheWHO.com

    PreventGenocide2030.org

    MaskCharade.com

    Under Development…

    DemandHealthFreedom.com

    DemandHealthFreedom.org

    HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com

    James Roguski

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

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

    JamesRoguski.com

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/about

    JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive

    310-619-3055

    All content is free to all readers.

    All support is deeply appreciated.

    CLICK HERE TO DONATE

    Share

    Leave a comment


    Everyone WORLDWIDE can send in their public comments...

    From James Roguski...

    Please take these actions ASAP.

    Submit your public comment, copy this entire text and share this message far and wide before 5pm Eastern on Monday, January 22, 2024.

    This opportunity for the public to comment is open to everyone in the entire world!!

    https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/its-time-to-yell-at-the-us-government
    It's Time To YELL At The U.S. Government Tell the Office for Global Affairs exactly what you really think of the proposed "Pandemic Agreement." Submit your written comments by Monday, January 22, 2024. GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM! James Roguski Share Leave a comment WORLDWIDE PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED “PANDEMIC AGREEMENT” HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR GLOBAL AFFAIRS PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW… OFFICIAL DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE HERE EVERYONE ON EARTH is invited to submit your written comments via email to OGA.RSVP@hhs.gov before 5pm Eastern time on Monday, January 22, 2024 with the subject line: “Written Comment Re: Implications of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Commitments/Regimes and Other Proposed Commitments in the WHO Pandemic Agreement” The most recent Negotiating Text of the WHO Pandemic Agreement (Negotiating Text) can be found here: https://apps.who.int/​gb/​inb/​pdf_​files/​inb7/​A_​INB7_​3-en.pdf Please take the time to copy the comment that you submit and post it in the comment section below… Leave a comment You can take the easy way out, and CLICK HERE to send a pre-written email, but I strongly encourage you to really put in the effort to let the Office for Global Affairs know what you really think! I encourage you to record a video (LIKE THESE) and include a link to your video in your email. FALSE ASSUMPTION #1: The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to answer a series of questions that assume that we want a “Pandemic Agreement” to be negotiated. They assume that we want “rapid creation and equitable deployment of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments.” FALSE ASSUMPTION #2: The proposed negotiating text of the “Pandemic Agreement” that was published on October 30, 2023 is already out of date. A new version is being written as we speak and is due to be available in February 2024. The Office for Global Affairs (OGA) wants us to comment on what is already an old version of the proposed agreement. THESE ARE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS THAT MUST BE CHALLENGED FEEL FREE TO COPY MY LETTER AND DECLARATION AND EDIT IT TO MAKE IT YOUR OWN: My letter to the Office of Global Affairs: My thoughts are best summarized in this video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/68noiys4ufyP/ and this website: http://ThePeoplesDeclaration.com The Office for Global Affairs MUST HEED the 33,884 comments that were submitted to the World Health Organization in April 2022: https://inb.who.int/home/public-hearings/first-round https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-first-round-public-hearings-written-contributions.xlsx?sfvrsn=275459d6_7 The Office for Global Affairs MUST ALSO HEED the hundreds of video comments submitted to the World Health Organization by INDIVIDUALS in September 2022: https://inb.who.int/docs/librariesprovider13/default-document-library/inb-public-hearings---video-list-(final).pdf?sfvrsn=242677f2_3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glXnQDeIOf8 The United States government should develop the software for a GLOBALLY AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE interactive forum/database for ALL types of health care practitioners to share their clinical experiences and observations IN REAL TIME WITHOUT CENSORSHIP OF ANY KIND regarding all diseases so that everyone on earth can access the wisdom of absolutely all the health professionals in the world for free. The tens of billions of dollars that might potentially be spent on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response would be much better spent ensuring that safe, potable drinking water and sanitary removal of waste water be provided for everyone on earth. ***** STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS These negotiations are in regards to what is essentially a trade dispute masquerading as a health issue that is beyond the competency of the World Health Organization. Health care is NOT an enumerated authority of the federal government. You have zero lawful authority regarding health. Health care is an issue that must be controlled by the 50 states as directed by the people of each state. These negotiations MUST be terminated immediately. Before any international agreement is to even be considered, a full reckoning of mistakes made, and crimes committed over the past five years MUST occur. No treaty, agreement, framework convention, amendments to the existing International Health Regulations or any other international instrument is needed, nor is one desired. Any agreement in the form of an open-ended "Framework Convention" MUST BE REJECTED. I DO NOT SUPPORT AND I ACTIVELY OPPOSE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL, HOSPITAL, EMERGENCY, INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (PHEIC). The search for "pathogens with pandemic potential" and the plan to build a global laboratory network to facilitate genetic sequencing is a thinly veiled disguise for bioweapons research. The use of Midazolam, ventilators, Run-Death-Is-Near, Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, and most other pharmaceutical interventions has been an absolute health and financial disaster for everyone except the pharmaceutical industry. Any discussion of, or any attempt to control or even monitor our unalienable right to free speech must be opposed and destroyed in its entirety. The WHO, the FDA and the CDC are the true source of the “infodemic” and they are the greatest providers of mis, dis and mal information. The mRNA platform and the coercion used to implement it has been such an absolute disaster that those who promoted and implemented it are guilty of crimes against humanity. STOP THE SHOTS! STOP THESE NEGOTIATIONS EXIT THE WHO The People's Declaration The People's Declaration Share this link: ThePeoplesDeclaration.com Read full story Additional information: https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/explainer-whos-pandemic-agreement-threatens-national-sovereignty-free-speech-and-life FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Question: If I submitted an email, but then I thought of something else that I wanted to say, can I submit another email? Answer: YES. Question: If I missed the deadline, can I still submit an email after the deadline has passed? Answer: Yes. Here is what the Office for Global Affairs said: “Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.” Federal Register Notice: The United States has expressed support for the development of an international instrument to protect the world from pandemic health threats now and in the future, and in a more rapid and equitable manner. The United States is seeking the following key outcomes in the negotiations: Enhance the capacity of countries around the world to prevent, prepare for, and respond to pandemic emergencies and provide clear, credible, consistent information to their citizens. Ensure that all countries share data and laboratory samples from emerging outbreaks quickly, safely, and transparently to facilitate response efforts and inform public health decision making regarding effective disease control measures, including the rapid creation of safe and effective vaccines, diagnostic tests, and treatments. Support more equitable and timely access to, and delivery of, vaccines, diagnostic tests, treatments, and other mitigation measures to quickly contain outbreaks, reduce illness and death, and minimize impacts on the economic and national security of people around the world. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of State are charged with co-leading the U.S. delegation to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. This Request for Comments procedure is designed to seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts to help inform the U.S. government negotiating position, including new approaches, proposals, or concerns with the current version of the negotiating text. Stakeholders are invited to provide comments on any and all issues raised by the negotiating text. For foreign-based entities, please specify country/ies in which the institution or organization is headquartered; if your institution or organization is a potential provider of pandemic-related products or services, please specify the types of products or services with which you are commonly associated or seeking to develop. All personal identifying information (for example, name and address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. To the extent commenters choose to comment on specific provisions of the negotiating text, it is helpful to reference any articles or sub-articles being addressed. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Kim, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Global Affairs, Office of the Secretary, HHS, Room (639H) Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, (202) 235–3537. Notice And Request For Comments 237KB ∙ PDF file Download https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-12-22/pdf/2023-28341.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/22/2023-28341/notice-and-request-for-comments-on-the-implications-of-access-and-benefit-sharing-abs LEARN MORE… Informed-Dissent.com StopTheGlobalAgenda.com ThePeoplesDeclaration.com ExitTheWHO.org ExitTheWHO.com RejectTheAmendments.com StopTheAmendments.com StopTheWHO.com ScrewTheWHO.com PreventGenocide2030.org MaskCharade.com Under Development… DemandHealthFreedom.com DemandHealthFreedom.org HealthFreedomBillOfRights.com James Roguski The old system is crumbling, and we must build its replacement quickly. If you are fed up with the government, hospital, medical, pharmaceutical, media, industrial complex and would like to help build a holistic alternative to the WHO, then feel free to contact me directly anytime. JamesRoguski.com JamesRoguski.substack.com/about JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive 310-619-3055 All content is free to all readers. All support is deeply appreciated. CLICK HERE TO DONATE Share Leave a comment Everyone WORLDWIDE can send in their public comments... From James Roguski... Please take these actions ASAP. Submit your public comment, copy this entire text and share this message far and wide before 5pm Eastern on Monday, January 22, 2024. This opportunity for the public to comment is open to everyone in the entire world!! https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/its-time-to-yell-at-the-us-government
    JAMESROGUSKI.SUBSTACK.COM
    It's Time To YELL At The U.S. Government
    Tell the Office for Global Affairs exactly what you really think of the proposed "Pandemic Agreement." Submit your written comments by Monday, January 22, 2024. GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7463 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight
    Debbie Lerman
    When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on?

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

    The analysis will show that:

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

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

    Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

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

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

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

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

    Military Acquisition

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

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

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

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

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

    What are “OTA authorities?”

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA)

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

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

    What types of transactions are we talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What About OTAs for Medical Products?

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

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

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

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

    Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Criteria for issuance of authorization

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

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

    PREP Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

    Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines

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

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

    But what about the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Acknowledgements

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

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

    Author

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

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

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10097 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two
    Debbie Lerman
    In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

    I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with

    no binding legal standards,
    no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and
    no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms.
    In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation.

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

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

    It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.”

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

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

    According to the DARPA website,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

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


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

    Where is this law housed and what does it say?

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

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

    The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

    HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

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

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

    So what did HHS do?

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

    What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

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

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

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

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

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wikipedia provides this definition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    I hope so.

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

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

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

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

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

    Author

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

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

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9864 Views
  • Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD?
    Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute

    Sasha Latypova
    Here is a key piece of legal history examined by Debbie Lerman. She is also now on Substack, please subscribe to her Debbie Lerman’s Substack. I will be quoting from Part 2 of the series of articles on Brownstone website here, Part 1 is linked to it.

    As you may recall, Operation Warp Speed was advertised as a “partnership” between HHS and DOD:


    “One Government Entity” was an odd choice of words. We have separate branches of government and separate federal agencies for many reasons. Importantly, this was envisioned by the framers as a system where federal agencies’ authorities are limited, and where different branches of government serve as checks or limits to each other. All those reasons apparently could be disregarded seemingly in an instant, under a manufactured “emergency”.

    At the time of the OWS announcement I thought it was odd that there was a need to bring DOD into this activity at all. What do they know about making drugs? Close to nothing. What do they know about pharmacy distribution chain in the US (which is fast, traceable, regulated by the states, very experienced, and is already established everywhere) - also not much. I later learned about the real role of the DOD in the “covid” mass murder exercise. I wrote many articles about it here, here and here, and made several presentations on this topic here and here.

    While it is now very clear that the DOD has been leading and funding the mass killing of civilians and own service members (to be replaced by imported mercenaries via southern border trafficking), to date, the reasons for the DOD-HHS partnerships remained vague. We knew the criminals needed the fig leaf of a faked “public health emergency” to issue the PREP Act declarations and EUAs (here, here and here), but the topic of the “partnership” remained largely unelucidated.

    Debbie Lerman, a journalist writing for Brownstone Institute, did some outstanding digging and analysis to uncover a really important piece of evidence of a carefully pre-planned, coordinated attack by the US federal agencies working in concert. It appears that one of the main reasons this “partnering” needed to happen was the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA). It turns out, quite reasonably, different federal agencies have different scope of the OTAs. The scope of HHS’s OTA did not permit manufacturing pharmaceuticals at scale, especially not before satisfying regulatory requirements for safety.

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

    OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing.

    The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing.

    Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety.

    In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products.

    So what did HHS do?

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

    Acting as separate federal agencies within the limits of their authorities, neither HHS nor DOD would have been able to order 100 million doses of unapproved, untested, previously thoroughly failed “vaccine”. So they “partnered” in order to break the constraints of their authorities:

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

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

    Another very useful insight from Debbie on EUA Countermeasures law is that the utilization of EUA in this “partnering” scheme is evidence in itself that the relevant US Government officials never believed covid was a viral pandemic. They knew it was a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agent or combination of such agents. That is because the EUA law does not include naturally occurring viral outbreaks (if you believe those exist in modern sanitary conditions, I don’t). The fact that the senior government executives lied by pumping mass propaganda about the “wet market zoonotic jump”, utilizing massive network of DHS and intelligence contractors to censor any social media mention to the contrary, prosecuting and smearing any credentialed person who pointed to the holes in their narrative, performing endless clown-show Congressional hearings about whether it was a zoonotic jump or a Wuhan leak, and currently continue to pretend covid was a viral pandemic only points to one thing - this attack being perpetuated by those who lie and cover it up, i.e. the US Government officials themselves:

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

    a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents;

    a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with—

    a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or

    an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces;

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

    the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

    Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Katherine Watt on how to prosecute this using the laws as material facts:

    One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial.

    Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’

    And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people.

    The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders.

    Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute.

    The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people?

    Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts.

    The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation.

    But in this case, the material facts are the laws.

    Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20.



    https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/why-did-hhs-partner-with-dod?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD? Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute Sasha Latypova Here is a key piece of legal history examined by Debbie Lerman. She is also now on Substack, please subscribe to her Debbie Lerman’s Substack. I will be quoting from Part 2 of the series of articles on Brownstone website here, Part 1 is linked to it. As you may recall, Operation Warp Speed was advertised as a “partnership” between HHS and DOD: “One Government Entity” was an odd choice of words. We have separate branches of government and separate federal agencies for many reasons. Importantly, this was envisioned by the framers as a system where federal agencies’ authorities are limited, and where different branches of government serve as checks or limits to each other. All those reasons apparently could be disregarded seemingly in an instant, under a manufactured “emergency”. At the time of the OWS announcement I thought it was odd that there was a need to bring DOD into this activity at all. What do they know about making drugs? Close to nothing. What do they know about pharmacy distribution chain in the US (which is fast, traceable, regulated by the states, very experienced, and is already established everywhere) - also not much. I later learned about the real role of the DOD in the “covid” mass murder exercise. I wrote many articles about it here, here and here, and made several presentations on this topic here and here. While it is now very clear that the DOD has been leading and funding the mass killing of civilians and own service members (to be replaced by imported mercenaries via southern border trafficking), to date, the reasons for the DOD-HHS partnerships remained vague. We knew the criminals needed the fig leaf of a faked “public health emergency” to issue the PREP Act declarations and EUAs (here, here and here), but the topic of the “partnership” remained largely unelucidated. Debbie Lerman, a journalist writing for Brownstone Institute, did some outstanding digging and analysis to uncover a really important piece of evidence of a carefully pre-planned, coordinated attack by the US federal agencies working in concert. It appears that one of the main reasons this “partnering” needed to happen was the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA). It turns out, quite reasonably, different federal agencies have different scope of the OTAs. The scope of HHS’s OTA did not permit manufacturing pharmaceuticals at scale, especially not before satisfying regulatory requirements for safety. To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) Acting as separate federal agencies within the limits of their authorities, neither HHS nor DOD would have been able to order 100 million doses of unapproved, untested, previously thoroughly failed “vaccine”. So they “partnered” in order to break the constraints of their authorities: While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Another very useful insight from Debbie on EUA Countermeasures law is that the utilization of EUA in this “partnering” scheme is evidence in itself that the relevant US Government officials never believed covid was a viral pandemic. They knew it was a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agent or combination of such agents. That is because the EUA law does not include naturally occurring viral outbreaks (if you believe those exist in modern sanitary conditions, I don’t). The fact that the senior government executives lied by pumping mass propaganda about the “wet market zoonotic jump”, utilizing massive network of DHS and intelligence contractors to censor any social media mention to the contrary, prosecuting and smearing any credentialed person who pointed to the holes in their narrative, performing endless clown-show Congressional hearings about whether it was a zoonotic jump or a Wuhan leak, and currently continue to pretend covid was a viral pandemic only points to one thing - this attack being perpetuated by those who lie and cover it up, i.e. the US Government officials themselves: The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was: “C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.” When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: “the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…” There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Katherine Watt on how to prosecute this using the laws as material facts: One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial. Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’ And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people. The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders. Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute. The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people? Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts. The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation. But in this case, the material facts are the laws. Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20. https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/why-did-hhs-partner-with-dod?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD?
    Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5483 Views
  • Explore this fully customizable succession planning roadmap PowerPoint template to provide a framework for human resource leaders. It helps to create a succession plan that aligns talent management with the company vision and guarantees the employees that the company will provide them with development opportunities to get success in the future.
    Download: https://bit.ly/3BTTrXH
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/EHM_QZu06lM
    #SuccessionPlanning #successionplan #roadmap #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #Powerpointdesign #Pptslides #pptdesign #pptpresentation #presentation #presentationdesign #kridhagraphics
    Explore this fully customizable succession planning roadmap PowerPoint template to provide a framework for human resource leaders. It helps to create a succession plan that aligns talent management with the company vision and guarantees the employees that the company will provide them with development opportunities to get success in the future. Download: https://bit.ly/3BTTrXH Watch Now: https://youtu.be/EHM_QZu06lM #SuccessionPlanning #successionplan #roadmap #powerpointtemplate #PowerPointslides #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #Powerpointdesign #Pptslides #pptdesign #pptpresentation #presentation #presentationdesign #kridhagraphics
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1185 Views
  • 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/
    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/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
    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...
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 12095 Views
  • Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”?
    Kevin Barrett, Senior EditorJanuary 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.



    Rumble link Bitchute link

    This week’s False Flag Weekly News featured J. Michael Springmann and I discussing the historic story “Israel Busted For Genocide.” Needless to say, we sided with the prosecution.

    Then last night I appeared on Charles Moscowitz’s podcast and heard Charles’ brief for the defense. Though I like Charles Moscowitz, and have a fair bit in common with him both philosophically and politically, I find his take on Zionism infuriating. Moscowitz’s new book The Anti-Semitic Imagination goes over a long list of “conspiracy theories” and absolves organized Jewry of involvement in pretty much all of them. Even the conspiracy to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Palestine, according to Moscowitz, is really the Palestinians’ fault. It’s also the fault of “radical jihadist Islam.” (Eyeball roll.)

    Below are excerpts from the two conversations.

    Kevin Barrett and J. Michael Springmann on Zionist genocide

    Kevin Barrett: Here’s the top war crime story this week: South Africa is leading the prosecution of Israel for genocide in The Hague.

    Sam Husseini (listen to our interview) has been tirelessly pushing this idea for months. Now it finally happened. Shout out to South Africa for making it happen.

    South Africa presented the case for the prosecution last Thursday, and then Friday was Israel’s response. The prosecution’s five-point accusation included mass killings of Palestinians, bodily and mental harm, forced displacement, a food blockade, destruction of the health care system, and preventing Palestinian births. All of these fit the definition of genocide under international law.

    J. Michael Springmann: I think South Africa has it right. Genocide was defined at the convention in 1948, which the Israelis signed and which they got because of the way the Europeans treated the Jews.

    Now they’re claiming that the Palestinians are engaging in genocide against them, when in actual fact the definition is along the lines of trying to wipe out or displace or remove by threats, by statements, by actions and by killings, a people or an ethnic group or a religious group.

    That it pretty much fits the Palestinians. They’re Muslims. They’re a coherent group of people. The Zionists have been working on this since the 20s and 30s with Plan Dalet cooked up by David Ben-Gurion, one of the terrorist leaders of the Haganah. He became a prime minister and he pushed through the genocide, the Nakba, the Holocaust against the Palestinians, in 1948 and subsequently.

    So I think the case is strong. The court has jurisdiction. The only problem is that it doesn’t have any power to enforce its decisions.

    Kevin Barrett: That’s right. But every nation on earth can say that it is enforcing international law once the decision gets handed down. So that means that, for example, the Yemeni government led by the Houthis would have a strong case that it has the right to impose a blockade on the Zionist entity to stop the genocide.

    And of course, that story has been heating up this week. We have had more drone attacks on Israeli oil tankers. And then the Americans went just yesterday and started bombing Yemen. There have been two rounds of bombings. They’ve hit dozens of targets in Yemen. And the Yemenis are up in arms. There is drone footage of millions of people titting the streets.

    Messing with Yemen is not a smart move, as the Saudis learned to their chagrin about seven or eight years ago. So is this going to be another case of a relatively poor and not that heavily armed country like Afghanistan kicking Uncle Sam’s butt?

    J. Michael Springmann: I think so. They’ve done a good job of flooding the Red Sea, which may become the Iron Bottom Sea if they hit enough ships with their missiles and drones. The foolish Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Australians and the Dutch have got themselves in the middle of a hornet’s nest.

    The Yemenis are battle-tested. Tor 10 years they’ve been fighting the Saudis, backed by the United States, and the Saudis couldn’t win, even though they bombed school buses and funeral processions and wedding receptions and so forth. So the Yemenis are tough, they have weapons, they’re not stupid, they’ve repurposed some Scud missiles to improve them and fire them at the Saudis.

    And of course the lamestream media controlled by the Zio-Nazis—that’s an insult to the Nazis actually—they keep claiming that the Iranians are doing all this, the Iranians somehow are backing Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ansar Allah freedom fighters and the people in Iraq and people in Syria. And you think that Iran is this great octopus, but in fact the Americans and the British are creating more problems for themselves, and sooner or later the Houthis are going to hit some very expensive warships and kill a lot of sailors

    Kevin Barrett: Yeah, and then all bets are off. It could be World War III for all we know. And one of the real shameful things about this is that the United States is officially at war, conducting an act of aggression against Yemen, bombing Yemen, killing people. They already killed Yemenis last week. And they’re doing this to protect a genocide. That makes them war criminals of the highest order. And every American leader with any responsibility whatsoever for this needs to be tried, convicted, sentenced and hanged until dead.

    Israel’s Massacre of Journalists

    Kevin Barrett: The Washington Post is the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s propaganda organ, and even they admit that there’s a horrific massacre of journalists going on. Wael Al-Dahdouh just lost his son. He lost most of his family a month and a half ago. And now the Zionists just targeted a car that his son was riding in and murdered him, too. There was a really touching film of his wedding video, the son’s wedding video, with Wael the Father celebrating the wedding. And now here he is with his son’s corpse.

    The Zionists have murdered over 100 journalists, according to the Palestinian authorities, and at least 79 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. About one out of every 10 reporters in Gaza has been murdered by the Zionists. I guess maybe there’s something they’re trying to hide.

    J. Michael Springmann: Yeah, they’re trying to hide the truth. And if you notice in the picture there, as in all the other pictures, the journalists that have been murdered, like the Al Mayadeen journalist and her cameraman, were all wearing “PRESS” emblazoned across their their flak vest in English and Arabic on their helmets, and yet somehow that this makes them targets instead of protecting them from the crazed creatures that are occupying Palestine and attempting to destroy the rest of the world.


    Kevin Barrett on Charles Moscowtiz’s Podcast (Excerpts)

    Podcast link

    Charles Moscowitz: Kevin, thanks for joining me.

    Kevin Barrett: Hey, it’s good to be with you, Charles.

    Charles Moscowitz: So before we get into the subjects of the day, I wouldn’t mind hearing a little bit about your story and how you arrived at where you are in terms of writing a book like Truth Jihad, your point of view, how it is you became Muslim.

    Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of a long, convoluted story, but basically, I came from a family of lapsed Unitarians, and that’s as lapsed as it gets. We didn’t even go to church to sing Kumbaya.

    Charles Moscowitz: Can I just interject briefly here, because I did, when I was on conventional radio, I used to do a segment on religions, and I’d have various people from all religions join me, and I had someone from the Unitarian Church join me. And I asked her, could you give me a thumbnail sketch on what it is that the Unitarians believe in? Are there any basic principles? And she said to me, funny, you should mention that we have a convention next month, we’re going to be figuring that out.

    Kevin Barrett: Well, I think they figured it out. And they said, “we don’t have any principles.” They actually have an atheist minister now in Madison, Wisconsin, where I went to church maybe two or three times at the Frank Lloyd Wright designed church in Madison when I was a kid.

    So I grew up in a very secular materialistic family, and I had spiritual experiences as a teenager, and knew there was a lot more to life than what the materialist paradigm was presenting. I read widely, looked into Buddhism as well as all sorts of other things when I was young, but I never really got monotheism. When my parents sent me to go to church with a Catholic next door neighbor to see what the Catholics do, it didn’t make any sense to me at all. The notion of this patriarchal God with Jesus as his son who died as redemption for everybody else’s sins, this whole story didn’t make any sense to me. But at the same time, I understood that there’s a real spiritual dimension to life. And so I looked into Buddhism, which did make a fair bit of sense.

    And then in 1989 through the grace of God, what many would call a coincidence or synchronicity, I happened to walk into a class taught by Dr. Jacob Needleman (and wound up reading Traditionalist authors like Guénon, Schuon and Lings, who became Muslims because they understood that Islam was the best-preserved authentic revealed religion as well as the one that is most rationally defensible).

    And the more I looked into it, the more I was convinced that that was the case. Islam also happened to have a very powerful mystical tradition and Sufism is a big part of that. And I very much related to that as well.

    So that’s how I came to Islam. I said, I better go study Arabic and Islamic studies to figure out what the heck I got myself into. So I went back to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and spent years learning Arabic and studying comparative religion and mostly Islam in the context of North Africa and Sufism.

    I’d probably still be teaching that stuff today, except 9/11 happened. And in late 2003, I heard David Ray Griffin, one of my great heroes—he’s a brilliant scholar, not so much a theologian as a guy who studies empirical reality and tries to figure out scientific questions—looked into 9/11.

    I looked into it, and I saw they (the 9/11 truthers) were right. And so I was very angry and upset again, and I flashed back to my JFK days and said, am I going to spend 6 or 7 years getting tenure and just let this thing go? Hell no.

    So I started doing teach-ins on the University of Wisconsin campus, became locally notorious. I had the first three mainstream pro-9/11 truth op-eds published in a mainstream newspaper in Madison, the Capital Times, and got involved in 9-11 Truth, brought Dr. Griffin to speak in Madison in 2005. I became kind of a figure in the 9/11 Truth movement.

    And then in 2006, when the opposition research guys decided to try to shut down 9/11 truth, because they couldn’t ignore it anymore, they came after me. And so I was basically beat up in mainstream media as “that evil 9/11 truth professor who’s corrupting the youth of Athens.”

    That made me permanently unemployable in the American academy. I lost a tenure-track job as well as any other possibility of employment. And so since then I’ve just been a freelance troublemaker and alternative media type guy like you.

    Charles Moscowitz: Exactly. And I think that people generally are coming around to viewing 9/11 as having more to it than what we were conventionally fed by the media.

    And in my own experience, when I ran for Congress in 2004 against Barney Frank, I discovered that he had authored this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which basically forbade the United States from denying visas to people who were involved in terrorist activities. And it also had the effect of preventing all of our various so-called national security agencies from talking to each other and exchanging information, which, you know, led me to think that there’s something bigger going on here. There was some kind of an establishment agenda…

    I discovered… there is a peaceful element, or at least an element within Islam, as expressed by the Mufti of Rome, Palasi, who says that Islamic texts, including the Quran and the Hadith, they recognize the, quote, people of the book, which is the Islamic word for the Jews, as being sovereign in that tiny little swath of beachfront known as Israel. And that there’s a religious side to that in that such sovereignty will result in the… I mean, I suppose it’s similar to Christianity in the coming of the Mahdi or the coming of the final prophet and the ushering in of a messianic era.

    And his work has not been refuted by Islamic scholars.

    I don’t think it’s certainly the mainstream.

    But I’m wondering what you think of that, and will you lie, will you come down on that question?

    Kevin Barrett: Well, you and I actually, Charles, are on totally polar opposite sides of that question, even though maybe our philosophical framework isn’t so different. That is, your ideas about the core values of Judaism, which I respect as the core values of Islam and indeed all monotheism…

    (But) I couldn’t come up with somebody who more exemplifies what I would say is the absolutely, just utterly wrong position on Zionism, as you.

    My view of it—and I realize this is probably going to sound shocking or strange to you— agrees with Sheikh Imran Hussein’s interpretation of eschatology. And essentially, as I see it, Charles, Zionism is Antichrist or Dajjal. It’s a false messiah.

    I think that it began with Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frank, who you agree are false messiahs and false prophets. And I agree with the Neturei Karta people from the Jewish viewpoint that God is asking all of us to be the best people that we can and to offer complete and perfect justice to everybody regardless of their nominal faith or ethnicity or religious affiliation or what have you. And I think Zionism is an expression of a pernicious and toxic Jewish supremacism that has been part of the shadow side of the Jewish faith.

    And from a Muslim perspective, we would say that emerges in part because of what we see as inaccuracies in the Torah, leading to abominations in the Talmud.

    And I think that the notion of a chosen people is, well, problematic. Of course, it can be interpreted in a way that encourages good behavior, which is your interpretation, and I honor that. But it also lends itself to interpretations that basically create a kind of supremacism that denies the rights of others and denies the viewpoints of others.

    And I think your book’s approach to Zionism horrifically denies the viewpoint and the rights and the human dignity of others, non-Zionists and non-Jews, especially Palestinians, who are the victims of genocide. And they didn’t start being the victims of genocide on October 7th. The’ve been victims of genocide nonstop ever since the earliest Zionists, who were mostly atheists and satanists, showed up in Palestine with a supremacist attitude. Rather than being immigrants who were going to work with the local people and help them and be part of their community, these people were supremacists who said, “it’s going to be a Jewish state. Jews are going to rule. Jews are the chosen people here. And we’re ultimately going to have to expel these native Palestinians.” And all the founders of Zionism knew they were going to have to commit genocide, that is expel, destroy, the local Palestinian community.

    Now that’s unacceptable, Charles. And I’ll tell you one of the reasons why. Not only because it requires genocide against the Palestinians, but also because that holy land is holy to all of us. It’s holy to Christians, to Jews, and to Muslims. Whoever has custody over that land has to administer it with perfect justice for all faiths. No special dispensations for any faith.

    The monotheists today consist of about 15 million Jews, 2 billion Muslims, and 3 billion Christians. So there are five billion monotheists today (who honor Abraham and the prophets) who are Muslim and Christian. And there are 15 million who are Jewish. All of those five billion plus people have equal rights to being equal citizens in every possible sense in that holy land.

    If I said, “it should be a Muslim state in which only Muslims are allowed to immigrate there, only Muslims are allowed to have the best property, Muslims are going to put up checkpoints so all the non-Muslims basically have to go through apartheid checkpoints to go to the store every day, Muslims are going to be shooting non-Muslim children for sport, which happens on a regular basis in Israel as the Israeli Defense Forces literally murder Palestinian children for sport on a constant basis and never face any consequences…

    If the Muslims acted like this against the Jews and the Christians in that holy land, it would be an abomination.

    So, the fact that this grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world’s 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide against the people who live there and erect a supremacist, apartheid, genocidal entity there and call it some kind of quasi-messianic entity and bow down and worship this genocidal entity as a golden calf–that’s Antichrist, that’s Dajjal, that’s the False Prophet, that’s another Shabtai Zvi.

    So I think that you’ve made a terrible mistake. I think you’re a good man, I think your basic values are good. But I think you’ve made a horrific mistake by grossly misinterpreting Israel, reading the history from a very, very biased viewpoint, an utterly one-sided viewpoint, that denies the story of the other, denies the humanity of the other, denies the facts that we all should be agreeing on, and instead replaces them with big lies and propaganda that are completely false about the history of what’s happened there.

    (How did Charles Moscowitz respond? Listen to the full podcast)



    Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror.

    He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard-driving weekly radio show funded by listener subscriptions at Substack and the weekly news roundup FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN).

    He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications.

    Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host.

    Archived Articles (2004-2016)

    www.truthjihad.com


    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/is-gaza-genocide-just-your-anti-semitic-imagination/
    Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”? Kevin Barrett, Senior EditorJanuary 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. Rumble link Bitchute link This week’s False Flag Weekly News featured J. Michael Springmann and I discussing the historic story “Israel Busted For Genocide.” Needless to say, we sided with the prosecution. Then last night I appeared on Charles Moscowitz’s podcast and heard Charles’ brief for the defense. Though I like Charles Moscowitz, and have a fair bit in common with him both philosophically and politically, I find his take on Zionism infuriating. Moscowitz’s new book The Anti-Semitic Imagination goes over a long list of “conspiracy theories” and absolves organized Jewry of involvement in pretty much all of them. Even the conspiracy to invade, occupy, and ethnically-cleanse Palestine, according to Moscowitz, is really the Palestinians’ fault. It’s also the fault of “radical jihadist Islam.” (Eyeball roll.) Below are excerpts from the two conversations. Kevin Barrett and J. Michael Springmann on Zionist genocide Kevin Barrett: Here’s the top war crime story this week: South Africa is leading the prosecution of Israel for genocide in The Hague. Sam Husseini (listen to our interview) has been tirelessly pushing this idea for months. Now it finally happened. Shout out to South Africa for making it happen. South Africa presented the case for the prosecution last Thursday, and then Friday was Israel’s response. The prosecution’s five-point accusation included mass killings of Palestinians, bodily and mental harm, forced displacement, a food blockade, destruction of the health care system, and preventing Palestinian births. All of these fit the definition of genocide under international law. J. Michael Springmann: I think South Africa has it right. Genocide was defined at the convention in 1948, which the Israelis signed and which they got because of the way the Europeans treated the Jews. Now they’re claiming that the Palestinians are engaging in genocide against them, when in actual fact the definition is along the lines of trying to wipe out or displace or remove by threats, by statements, by actions and by killings, a people or an ethnic group or a religious group. That it pretty much fits the Palestinians. They’re Muslims. They’re a coherent group of people. The Zionists have been working on this since the 20s and 30s with Plan Dalet cooked up by David Ben-Gurion, one of the terrorist leaders of the Haganah. He became a prime minister and he pushed through the genocide, the Nakba, the Holocaust against the Palestinians, in 1948 and subsequently. So I think the case is strong. The court has jurisdiction. The only problem is that it doesn’t have any power to enforce its decisions. Kevin Barrett: That’s right. But every nation on earth can say that it is enforcing international law once the decision gets handed down. So that means that, for example, the Yemeni government led by the Houthis would have a strong case that it has the right to impose a blockade on the Zionist entity to stop the genocide. And of course, that story has been heating up this week. We have had more drone attacks on Israeli oil tankers. And then the Americans went just yesterday and started bombing Yemen. There have been two rounds of bombings. They’ve hit dozens of targets in Yemen. And the Yemenis are up in arms. There is drone footage of millions of people titting the streets. Messing with Yemen is not a smart move, as the Saudis learned to their chagrin about seven or eight years ago. So is this going to be another case of a relatively poor and not that heavily armed country like Afghanistan kicking Uncle Sam’s butt? J. Michael Springmann: I think so. They’ve done a good job of flooding the Red Sea, which may become the Iron Bottom Sea if they hit enough ships with their missiles and drones. The foolish Americans and the British and the Canadians and the Australians and the Dutch have got themselves in the middle of a hornet’s nest. The Yemenis are battle-tested. Tor 10 years they’ve been fighting the Saudis, backed by the United States, and the Saudis couldn’t win, even though they bombed school buses and funeral processions and wedding receptions and so forth. So the Yemenis are tough, they have weapons, they’re not stupid, they’ve repurposed some Scud missiles to improve them and fire them at the Saudis. And of course the lamestream media controlled by the Zio-Nazis—that’s an insult to the Nazis actually—they keep claiming that the Iranians are doing all this, the Iranians somehow are backing Hamas and Hezbollah and the Ansar Allah freedom fighters and the people in Iraq and people in Syria. And you think that Iran is this great octopus, but in fact the Americans and the British are creating more problems for themselves, and sooner or later the Houthis are going to hit some very expensive warships and kill a lot of sailors Kevin Barrett: Yeah, and then all bets are off. It could be World War III for all we know. And one of the real shameful things about this is that the United States is officially at war, conducting an act of aggression against Yemen, bombing Yemen, killing people. They already killed Yemenis last week. And they’re doing this to protect a genocide. That makes them war criminals of the highest order. And every American leader with any responsibility whatsoever for this needs to be tried, convicted, sentenced and hanged until dead. Israel’s Massacre of Journalists Kevin Barrett: The Washington Post is the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s propaganda organ, and even they admit that there’s a horrific massacre of journalists going on. Wael Al-Dahdouh just lost his son. He lost most of his family a month and a half ago. And now the Zionists just targeted a car that his son was riding in and murdered him, too. There was a really touching film of his wedding video, the son’s wedding video, with Wael the Father celebrating the wedding. And now here he is with his son’s corpse. The Zionists have murdered over 100 journalists, according to the Palestinian authorities, and at least 79 according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. About one out of every 10 reporters in Gaza has been murdered by the Zionists. I guess maybe there’s something they’re trying to hide. J. Michael Springmann: Yeah, they’re trying to hide the truth. And if you notice in the picture there, as in all the other pictures, the journalists that have been murdered, like the Al Mayadeen journalist and her cameraman, were all wearing “PRESS” emblazoned across their their flak vest in English and Arabic on their helmets, and yet somehow that this makes them targets instead of protecting them from the crazed creatures that are occupying Palestine and attempting to destroy the rest of the world. Kevin Barrett on Charles Moscowtiz’s Podcast (Excerpts) Podcast link Charles Moscowitz: Kevin, thanks for joining me. Kevin Barrett: Hey, it’s good to be with you, Charles. Charles Moscowitz: So before we get into the subjects of the day, I wouldn’t mind hearing a little bit about your story and how you arrived at where you are in terms of writing a book like Truth Jihad, your point of view, how it is you became Muslim. Kevin Barrett: It’s kind of a long, convoluted story, but basically, I came from a family of lapsed Unitarians, and that’s as lapsed as it gets. We didn’t even go to church to sing Kumbaya. Charles Moscowitz: Can I just interject briefly here, because I did, when I was on conventional radio, I used to do a segment on religions, and I’d have various people from all religions join me, and I had someone from the Unitarian Church join me. And I asked her, could you give me a thumbnail sketch on what it is that the Unitarians believe in? Are there any basic principles? And she said to me, funny, you should mention that we have a convention next month, we’re going to be figuring that out. Kevin Barrett: Well, I think they figured it out. And they said, “we don’t have any principles.” They actually have an atheist minister now in Madison, Wisconsin, where I went to church maybe two or three times at the Frank Lloyd Wright designed church in Madison when I was a kid. So I grew up in a very secular materialistic family, and I had spiritual experiences as a teenager, and knew there was a lot more to life than what the materialist paradigm was presenting. I read widely, looked into Buddhism as well as all sorts of other things when I was young, but I never really got monotheism. When my parents sent me to go to church with a Catholic next door neighbor to see what the Catholics do, it didn’t make any sense to me at all. The notion of this patriarchal God with Jesus as his son who died as redemption for everybody else’s sins, this whole story didn’t make any sense to me. But at the same time, I understood that there’s a real spiritual dimension to life. And so I looked into Buddhism, which did make a fair bit of sense. And then in 1989 through the grace of God, what many would call a coincidence or synchronicity, I happened to walk into a class taught by Dr. Jacob Needleman (and wound up reading Traditionalist authors like Guénon, Schuon and Lings, who became Muslims because they understood that Islam was the best-preserved authentic revealed religion as well as the one that is most rationally defensible). And the more I looked into it, the more I was convinced that that was the case. Islam also happened to have a very powerful mystical tradition and Sufism is a big part of that. And I very much related to that as well. So that’s how I came to Islam. I said, I better go study Arabic and Islamic studies to figure out what the heck I got myself into. So I went back to graduate school at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and spent years learning Arabic and studying comparative religion and mostly Islam in the context of North Africa and Sufism. I’d probably still be teaching that stuff today, except 9/11 happened. And in late 2003, I heard David Ray Griffin, one of my great heroes—he’s a brilliant scholar, not so much a theologian as a guy who studies empirical reality and tries to figure out scientific questions—looked into 9/11. I looked into it, and I saw they (the 9/11 truthers) were right. And so I was very angry and upset again, and I flashed back to my JFK days and said, am I going to spend 6 or 7 years getting tenure and just let this thing go? Hell no. So I started doing teach-ins on the University of Wisconsin campus, became locally notorious. I had the first three mainstream pro-9/11 truth op-eds published in a mainstream newspaper in Madison, the Capital Times, and got involved in 9-11 Truth, brought Dr. Griffin to speak in Madison in 2005. I became kind of a figure in the 9/11 Truth movement. And then in 2006, when the opposition research guys decided to try to shut down 9/11 truth, because they couldn’t ignore it anymore, they came after me. And so I was basically beat up in mainstream media as “that evil 9/11 truth professor who’s corrupting the youth of Athens.” That made me permanently unemployable in the American academy. I lost a tenure-track job as well as any other possibility of employment. And so since then I’ve just been a freelance troublemaker and alternative media type guy like you. Charles Moscowitz: Exactly. And I think that people generally are coming around to viewing 9/11 as having more to it than what we were conventionally fed by the media. And in my own experience, when I ran for Congress in 2004 against Barney Frank, I discovered that he had authored this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which basically forbade the United States from denying visas to people who were involved in terrorist activities. And it also had the effect of preventing all of our various so-called national security agencies from talking to each other and exchanging information, which, you know, led me to think that there’s something bigger going on here. There was some kind of an establishment agenda… I discovered… there is a peaceful element, or at least an element within Islam, as expressed by the Mufti of Rome, Palasi, who says that Islamic texts, including the Quran and the Hadith, they recognize the, quote, people of the book, which is the Islamic word for the Jews, as being sovereign in that tiny little swath of beachfront known as Israel. And that there’s a religious side to that in that such sovereignty will result in the… I mean, I suppose it’s similar to Christianity in the coming of the Mahdi or the coming of the final prophet and the ushering in of a messianic era. And his work has not been refuted by Islamic scholars. I don’t think it’s certainly the mainstream. But I’m wondering what you think of that, and will you lie, will you come down on that question? Kevin Barrett: Well, you and I actually, Charles, are on totally polar opposite sides of that question, even though maybe our philosophical framework isn’t so different. That is, your ideas about the core values of Judaism, which I respect as the core values of Islam and indeed all monotheism… (But) I couldn’t come up with somebody who more exemplifies what I would say is the absolutely, just utterly wrong position on Zionism, as you. My view of it—and I realize this is probably going to sound shocking or strange to you— agrees with Sheikh Imran Hussein’s interpretation of eschatology. And essentially, as I see it, Charles, Zionism is Antichrist or Dajjal. It’s a false messiah. I think that it began with Shabtai Zvi and Jacob Frank, who you agree are false messiahs and false prophets. And I agree with the Neturei Karta people from the Jewish viewpoint that God is asking all of us to be the best people that we can and to offer complete and perfect justice to everybody regardless of their nominal faith or ethnicity or religious affiliation or what have you. And I think Zionism is an expression of a pernicious and toxic Jewish supremacism that has been part of the shadow side of the Jewish faith. And from a Muslim perspective, we would say that emerges in part because of what we see as inaccuracies in the Torah, leading to abominations in the Talmud. And I think that the notion of a chosen people is, well, problematic. Of course, it can be interpreted in a way that encourages good behavior, which is your interpretation, and I honor that. But it also lends itself to interpretations that basically create a kind of supremacism that denies the rights of others and denies the viewpoints of others. And I think your book’s approach to Zionism horrifically denies the viewpoint and the rights and the human dignity of others, non-Zionists and non-Jews, especially Palestinians, who are the victims of genocide. And they didn’t start being the victims of genocide on October 7th. The’ve been victims of genocide nonstop ever since the earliest Zionists, who were mostly atheists and satanists, showed up in Palestine with a supremacist attitude. Rather than being immigrants who were going to work with the local people and help them and be part of their community, these people were supremacists who said, “it’s going to be a Jewish state. Jews are going to rule. Jews are the chosen people here. And we’re ultimately going to have to expel these native Palestinians.” And all the founders of Zionism knew they were going to have to commit genocide, that is expel, destroy, the local Palestinian community. Now that’s unacceptable, Charles. And I’ll tell you one of the reasons why. Not only because it requires genocide against the Palestinians, but also because that holy land is holy to all of us. It’s holy to Christians, to Jews, and to Muslims. Whoever has custody over that land has to administer it with perfect justice for all faiths. No special dispensations for any faith. The monotheists today consist of about 15 million Jews, 2 billion Muslims, and 3 billion Christians. So there are five billion monotheists today (who honor Abraham and the prophets) who are Muslim and Christian. And there are 15 million who are Jewish. All of those five billion plus people have equal rights to being equal citizens in every possible sense in that holy land. If I said, “it should be a Muslim state in which only Muslims are allowed to immigrate there, only Muslims are allowed to have the best property, Muslims are going to put up checkpoints so all the non-Muslims basically have to go through apartheid checkpoints to go to the store every day, Muslims are going to be shooting non-Muslim children for sport, which happens on a regular basis in Israel as the Israeli Defense Forces literally murder Palestinian children for sport on a constant basis and never face any consequences… If the Muslims acted like this against the Jews and the Christians in that holy land, it would be an abomination. So, the fact that this grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world’s 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide against the people who live there and erect a supremacist, apartheid, genocidal entity there and call it some kind of quasi-messianic entity and bow down and worship this genocidal entity as a golden calf–that’s Antichrist, that’s Dajjal, that’s the False Prophet, that’s another Shabtai Zvi. So I think that you’ve made a terrible mistake. I think you’re a good man, I think your basic values are good. But I think you’ve made a horrific mistake by grossly misinterpreting Israel, reading the history from a very, very biased viewpoint, an utterly one-sided viewpoint, that denies the story of the other, denies the humanity of the other, denies the facts that we all should be agreeing on, and instead replaces them with big lies and propaganda that are completely false about the history of what’s happened there. (How did Charles Moscowitz respond? Listen to the full podcast) Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. He is the host of TRUTH JIHAD RADIO; a hard-driving weekly radio show funded by listener subscriptions at Substack and the weekly news roundup FALSE FLAG WEEKLY NEWS (FFWN). He also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other leading publications. Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author, and talk radio host. Archived Articles (2004-2016) www.truthjihad.com 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/is-gaza-genocide-just-your-anti-semitic-imagination/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    Is Gaza Genocide Just Your “Anti-Semitic Imagination”?
    A grotesquely deluded and egotistical and egocentric and arguably tribally psychopathic group of 15 million of the world's 5 billion monotheists has seen fit to invade the Holy Land and commit genocide...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 12885 Views
  • Design a legal agreement sales and purchase that contains all the protection elements of buyer and seller parties. Explore this fully editable confidential information of sales and purchase agreement PowerPoint slide to create legal framework.
    Download: https://bit.ly/3vSq9GR
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/q4ICVS2aBJQ
    #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #powerpointdesign #ppt #presentation #slides #kridhagraphics #presentationdesign #slide #pptdesign #Pptslides #saleagreement #purchaseagreement #SalePurchase #PowerPointslides
    Design a legal agreement sales and purchase that contains all the protection elements of buyer and seller parties. Explore this fully editable confidential information of sales and purchase agreement PowerPoint slide to create legal framework. Download: https://bit.ly/3vSq9GR Watch Now: https://youtu.be/q4ICVS2aBJQ #powerpointpresentation #powerpointtemplates #powerpointdesign #ppt #presentation #slides #kridhagraphics #presentationdesign #slide #pptdesign #Pptslides #saleagreement #purchaseagreement #SalePurchase #PowerPointslides
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1197 Views
  • Is Israel Merely Stupid or Insane? Motivated by Revenge and Hubris. The Response to the Crime: “Escalate the Resistance in Gaza”
    What Will the Rocket Named After Saleh al-Arouri Look Like?


    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

    To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

    Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    ***

    New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth”

    *

    “I am certain soon we can look forward to a family of rockets named after martyred leader Saleh al-Arouri,” Deputy Chair of the Political Bureau of Hamas and founder of the Martyr Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades.

    It is beyond me how Israel has failed to figure out that a martyred Palestinian leader exerts a vastly more powerful hold on his people’s imagination and will to resist than a living one.

    After decades of targeting and killing a long list of Palestinian leaders (or imprisoning them), Israel has not learned that another generation of leaders, stronger and fiercer than their predecessor, emerges inevitably. It makes me wonder if Israel is merely stupid or insane. There is a saying that goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    To people following Israel’s war on Gaza and unaware of Israel’s policy of targeted killing, the assassination in Lebanon of Saleh al-Arouri, Deputy Chair of the Political Bureau of Hamas and founder of the Martyr Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, may have come as a surprise. My own reaction included an element of surprise but for a different reason. I had been betting incorrectly that Israel and the US were smarter than to risk a war with Hezbollah.

    Some Israeli ministers who had not received Netanyahu’s memo to keep their mouths shut about the killings foolishly tweeted congratulations to Mossad and Shin Bet on the deed, thus proving that they are not motivated by deterrence, but rather by revenge and hubris.

    Not that targeted killing of Palestinian leaders has ever been effective as a deterrence measure. A few days before the assassination of al-Arouri and several of his comrades (collateral damage?), I had watched a presentation on al-Jazeera Arabic showcasing the various families of home-made rockets in the possession of the Palestinian armed resistance. Each slide showed a group of rockets with the picture next to it of an assassinated leader after whom the class of rockets was named.



    Ayyash Rocket, named after martyred engineer Yahya Ayyash; Ranteesi Rocket, named after martyred leader Abdel Azziz al-Ranteesi; Abu Shammaleh Rocket, named after martyred leader Mohammad Abu Shammaleh; Attar Rocket, named after martyred leader Raed al-Attar; Ja’abari Rocket, named after martyred leader Ahmad al-Ja’abari; Rocket M90, named after martyred leader Ibrahim al-Maqadmeh

    I am certain soon we can look forward to a family of al-Qassam Brigades’ rockets named after martyred leader Saleh al-Arouri.



    Al-Qassam Rocket, named after Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam

    Israel has used extrajudicial executions (aka targeted killing) of Palestinian leaders openly since 2001, giving itself a license to kill, including in the territories of other States. By re-characterizing individuals as “terrorists” (al-Arouri was also on the US terrorism list with a bounty of $5m (£4m) on his head since 2018), Israel and the US justify such killing within the framework of the law of armed conflict, thus blurring and expanding that law (also known as international humanitarian law) and making the global order less safe for everybody. Read “10 things the rules of war do” published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and you will immediately notice that the US and Israel are violating every single rule in Gaza.

    In an article titled, ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 76: Extrajudicial Killings of Men in Front of Their Families in Gaza, we learn that “Israeli forces have reportedly conducted extrajudicial executions in front of families in Gaza as international leaders continue to discuss Israel’s conduct with little to no action, while negotiations between Israel and Hamas waver as war rages on.”

    Extrajudicial executions are illegal under international law and are considered a fundamental violation of human rights and an “affront to the conscience of humanity.” In the same way that Israel argues falsely (most recently as it defends itself against genocide accusation at ICJ) that its policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza or the West Bank is consistent with international law, “because Israel is engaged in armed conflict with terrorists,” it lies about the people it targets by saying they are “usually killed by conventional military means, not through deception, and the targets of the attacks are not civilians but combatants or are part of a military chain of command.”

    The following statistics give an idea of how this policy works in bolstering Israel’s repressive measures against Palestinians: “… from the beginning of the second intifada, on 29 September 2000, to the end of 2010, Israeli security forces killed 4,927 Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, 970 of them minors (under age 18). At least 2,227 of the fatalities were not taking part in hostilities. Another 239 were the object of a targeted killing. Thousands more were injured. [These figures do not include the casualties in Operation Cast Lead.]”

    Palestinians have yet to be deterred by Israel’s policies and the cover of impunity the US gives them.

    Predictably, the reaction is quite the opposite as is evident in the following press statement issued by the joint leadership of the People’s Democratic Party and the Arab Socialist Labor Party in Lebanon on Jan 3, following the assassination of al-Arouri and his comrades. The two parties offered their condolences and affirmed “The natural response to the crime will be to escalate the resistance in Gaza, the West Bank and all supporting fronts, and the enemy entity will be under the fire of resistance from southern Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.”

    *

    Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

    This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite.

    Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

    She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

    All images in this article are from the author

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/rocket-named-after-saleh-al-arouri-look-like/5845176
    Is Israel Merely Stupid or Insane? Motivated by Revenge and Hubris. The Response to the Crime: “Escalate the Resistance in Gaza” What Will the Rocket Named After Saleh al-Arouri Look Like? All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. *** New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth” * “I am certain soon we can look forward to a family of rockets named after martyred leader Saleh al-Arouri,” Deputy Chair of the Political Bureau of Hamas and founder of the Martyr Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades. It is beyond me how Israel has failed to figure out that a martyred Palestinian leader exerts a vastly more powerful hold on his people’s imagination and will to resist than a living one. After decades of targeting and killing a long list of Palestinian leaders (or imprisoning them), Israel has not learned that another generation of leaders, stronger and fiercer than their predecessor, emerges inevitably. It makes me wonder if Israel is merely stupid or insane. There is a saying that goes, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” To people following Israel’s war on Gaza and unaware of Israel’s policy of targeted killing, the assassination in Lebanon of Saleh al-Arouri, Deputy Chair of the Political Bureau of Hamas and founder of the Martyr Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, may have come as a surprise. My own reaction included an element of surprise but for a different reason. I had been betting incorrectly that Israel and the US were smarter than to risk a war with Hezbollah. Some Israeli ministers who had not received Netanyahu’s memo to keep their mouths shut about the killings foolishly tweeted congratulations to Mossad and Shin Bet on the deed, thus proving that they are not motivated by deterrence, but rather by revenge and hubris. Not that targeted killing of Palestinian leaders has ever been effective as a deterrence measure. A few days before the assassination of al-Arouri and several of his comrades (collateral damage?), I had watched a presentation on al-Jazeera Arabic showcasing the various families of home-made rockets in the possession of the Palestinian armed resistance. Each slide showed a group of rockets with the picture next to it of an assassinated leader after whom the class of rockets was named. Ayyash Rocket, named after martyred engineer Yahya Ayyash; Ranteesi Rocket, named after martyred leader Abdel Azziz al-Ranteesi; Abu Shammaleh Rocket, named after martyred leader Mohammad Abu Shammaleh; Attar Rocket, named after martyred leader Raed al-Attar; Ja’abari Rocket, named after martyred leader Ahmad al-Ja’abari; Rocket M90, named after martyred leader Ibrahim al-Maqadmeh I am certain soon we can look forward to a family of al-Qassam Brigades’ rockets named after martyred leader Saleh al-Arouri. Al-Qassam Rocket, named after Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam Israel has used extrajudicial executions (aka targeted killing) of Palestinian leaders openly since 2001, giving itself a license to kill, including in the territories of other States. By re-characterizing individuals as “terrorists” (al-Arouri was also on the US terrorism list with a bounty of $5m (£4m) on his head since 2018), Israel and the US justify such killing within the framework of the law of armed conflict, thus blurring and expanding that law (also known as international humanitarian law) and making the global order less safe for everybody. Read “10 things the rules of war do” published by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and you will immediately notice that the US and Israel are violating every single rule in Gaza. In an article titled, ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 76: Extrajudicial Killings of Men in Front of Their Families in Gaza, we learn that “Israeli forces have reportedly conducted extrajudicial executions in front of families in Gaza as international leaders continue to discuss Israel’s conduct with little to no action, while negotiations between Israel and Hamas waver as war rages on.” Extrajudicial executions are illegal under international law and are considered a fundamental violation of human rights and an “affront to the conscience of humanity.” In the same way that Israel argues falsely (most recently as it defends itself against genocide accusation at ICJ) that its policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza or the West Bank is consistent with international law, “because Israel is engaged in armed conflict with terrorists,” it lies about the people it targets by saying they are “usually killed by conventional military means, not through deception, and the targets of the attacks are not civilians but combatants or are part of a military chain of command.” The following statistics give an idea of how this policy works in bolstering Israel’s repressive measures against Palestinians: “… from the beginning of the second intifada, on 29 September 2000, to the end of 2010, Israeli security forces killed 4,927 Palestinians in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, 970 of them minors (under age 18). At least 2,227 of the fatalities were not taking part in hostilities. Another 239 were the object of a targeted killing. Thousands more were injured. [These figures do not include the casualties in Operation Cast Lead.]” Palestinians have yet to be deterred by Israel’s policies and the cover of impunity the US gives them. Predictably, the reaction is quite the opposite as is evident in the following press statement issued by the joint leadership of the People’s Democratic Party and the Arab Socialist Labor Party in Lebanon on Jan 3, following the assassination of al-Arouri and his comrades. The two parties offered their condolences and affirmed “The natural response to the crime will be to escalate the resistance in Gaza, the West Bank and all supporting fronts, and the enemy entity will be under the fire of resistance from southern Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.” * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. This article was originally published on the author’s blogsite. Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a regular contributor to Global Research. All images in this article are from the author https://www.globalresearch.ca/rocket-named-after-saleh-al-arouri-look-like/5845176
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    Is Israel Merely Stupid or Insane? Motivated by Revenge and Hubris. The Response to the Crime: "Escalate the Resistance in Gaza"
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 7114 Views
  • Upcoming Benchmarking Law Pitfalls: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes
    Benchmarking laws serve as a framework for organizations to measure and compare their energy performance against industry standards. They offer valuable insights, enabling businesses to identify energy-saving opportunities, reduce costs, and enhance their environmental sustainability. By complying with benchmarking regulations, organizations contribute to broader societal goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving natural resources.
    For more information: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s350/sh/93b57399-bb1e-c59a-0eb7-f88eeda3586f/3Anv1o9efdpHIhKfOPj_zc4uuYwBhgjM5es9ZHvGoue-o7Mn7CjmQrq9IQ
    Upcoming Benchmarking Law Pitfalls: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes Benchmarking laws serve as a framework for organizations to measure and compare their energy performance against industry standards. They offer valuable insights, enabling businesses to identify energy-saving opportunities, reduce costs, and enhance their environmental sustainability. By complying with benchmarking regulations, organizations contribute to broader societal goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving natural resources. For more information: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s350/sh/93b57399-bb1e-c59a-0eb7-f88eeda3586f/3Anv1o9efdpHIhKfOPj_zc4uuYwBhgjM5es9ZHvGoue-o7Mn7CjmQrq9IQ
    WWW.EVERNOTE.COM
    Upcoming Benchmarking Law Pitfalls: How to Avoid Costly Mistakes
    In today's dynamic regulatory landscape, benchmarking laws hold significant importance for businesses, particularly in the energy sector. Comprehending and adhering to these laws is crucial, as they n...
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2618 Views
  • What do you know about Ethereum?

    Top 10 interesting facts about Ethereum:

    1. Ethereum is renowned for introducing smart contracts to blockchain technology, enabling self-executing contracts with predefined rules and conditions.

    2. Founded by a team led by Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's development began in late 2013, with its mainnet going live on July 30, 2015.

    3. Ethereum's native cryptocurrency is called Ether. It serves as both a fuel for executing smart contracts and a store of value within the Ethereum network.

    4. Ethereum facilitates the creation of decentralized applications, leading to a thriving ecosystem of diverse DApps across various industries like finance, gaming, and supply chain.

    5. Ethereum has undergone significant upgrades through hard forks. The most notable ones include Ethereum Classic (ETC) splitting from Ethereum after the DAO hack and the transition to Ethereum 2.0 for scalability improvements.

    6. Ethereum is transitioning from a Proof-of-Work (PoW) to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism with Ethereum 2.0. This aims to enhance scalability, security, and energy efficiency.

    7. Established in 2017, the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA) is a consortium of companies and organizations working to develop standards and frameworks for enterprise-level applications using Ethereum.

    8. The ERC-20 standard on Ethereum has facilitated the creation of numerous tokens, leading to the widespread use of initial coin offerings (ICOs) for fundraising.

    9. The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) incident in 2016 resulted in a contentious hard fork to reverse the effects of a significant hack, leading to the creation of Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC).

    10. Ethereum has consistently been one of the most dominant cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, showcasing its significant impact on the blockchain and crypto space.

    Ethereum NFT:
    https://bit.ly/41IbWLi

    #nfts #nft #buynft #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #nftart #nftartwork #nftartist #facts #eth #Ethereum #crypto #cryptocurrency
    What do you know about Ethereum? Top 10 interesting facts about Ethereum: 1. Ethereum is renowned for introducing smart contracts to blockchain technology, enabling self-executing contracts with predefined rules and conditions. 2. Founded by a team led by Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum's development began in late 2013, with its mainnet going live on July 30, 2015. 3. Ethereum's native cryptocurrency is called Ether. It serves as both a fuel for executing smart contracts and a store of value within the Ethereum network. 4. Ethereum facilitates the creation of decentralized applications, leading to a thriving ecosystem of diverse DApps across various industries like finance, gaming, and supply chain. 5. Ethereum has undergone significant upgrades through hard forks. The most notable ones include Ethereum Classic (ETC) splitting from Ethereum after the DAO hack and the transition to Ethereum 2.0 for scalability improvements. 6. Ethereum is transitioning from a Proof-of-Work (PoW) to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism with Ethereum 2.0. This aims to enhance scalability, security, and energy efficiency. 7. Established in 2017, the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance (EEA) is a consortium of companies and organizations working to develop standards and frameworks for enterprise-level applications using Ethereum. 8. The ERC-20 standard on Ethereum has facilitated the creation of numerous tokens, leading to the widespread use of initial coin offerings (ICOs) for fundraising. 9. The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) incident in 2016 resulted in a contentious hard fork to reverse the effects of a significant hack, leading to the creation of Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC). 10. Ethereum has consistently been one of the most dominant cryptocurrencies by market capitalization, showcasing its significant impact on the blockchain and crypto space. Ethereum NFT: https://bit.ly/41IbWLi #nfts #nft #buynft #nftcollectibles #nftcollection #nftart #nftartwork #nftartist #facts #eth #Ethereum #crypto #cryptocurrency
    BIT.LY
    Ethereum Details Illustration - LimeWire
    "Check out Ethereum Details Illustration from Nftcraft on LimeWire"
    Like
    1
    1 Comments 0 Shares 10914 Views
  • ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 84: Gaza at ‘catastrophic threshold’ of famine, West Bank marks ‘deadliest year on record’ for Palestinian children
    Israel faces growing tensions between the war cabinet and the far-right coalition government as Egypt presents a ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile, Israeli forces kill at least three Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    Mondoweiss Palestine BureauDecember 29, 2023
    People struggle to recover bodies and survivors from under the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli airstrike on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, December 28, 2023. (Photo: by Bashar Taleb/APA Images)
    People struggle to recover bodies and survivors from under the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli airstrike on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, December 28, 2023. (Photo: by Bashar Taleb/APA Images)
    Casualties:

    21,507 killed* and at least 55,915 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
    316 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
    *This figure is the latest confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health as of December 29. Due to breakdowns in communication networks within the Gaza Strip, the Ministry of Health in Gaza has been unable to regularly and accurately update its tolls since mid-November. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 30,000 when accounting for those presumed dead.

    Key Developments

    Deadly airstrikes pummel several areas across Gaza, killing 187 people in 24 hours.
    Fighting continues to rage on between Israeli ground troops and Palestinian armed groups, as Israeli army announces an expansion of operations in Khan Younis.
    U.N. says hunger in Gaza has passed “catastrophic threshold,” as UNRWA estimates 40 percent of the population is at risk of famine while aid barely trickles in.
    Health and human rights groups denounce Israel’s continued targeting of Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis and Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia amid systematic attacks on the health care system in Gaza.
    Palestinians who were detained in northern Gaza report threats, violence, and humiliation at the hands of Israeli forces.
    Hamas delegation heads to Cairo on Friday to discuss Egyptian proposal for ceasefire, reiterates call for complete cessation of Israeli aggression in Gaza, and for Palestinians to determine the shape of their own political future.
    Israeli leadership torn between war cabinet and far-right elements of coalition government, who refuse to consider possibility of Palestinian Authority involvement in Gaza.
    Leaked Israeli High Court draft ruling indicates one of most contested clauses of Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul could be struck down, reigniting internal Israeli disputes.
    Thousands of demonstrators call for release of hostages in Jerusalem i culmination of five days of protests, Israeli army releases probe into killing of three Israeli hostages by own soldiers.
    Israel continues to shell southern Lebanon and Syria, armed groups in neighboring countries respond.
    U.S. forces intercept Yemeni drone and missile in Red Sea.
    Israeli forces shoot and kill a Palestinian man allegedly responsible for stabbing attack at checkpoint near Jerusalem on Thursday, raids home and detains relatives.
    Palestinian killed by Israeli forces in southern occupied West Bank on Friday following alleged car-ramming attack.
    Israeli forces detain more than 15 Palestinians during violent overnight raids, as U.N. raises the alarm about the rising violence in the occupied West Bank.
    Peace Now warns Israel is expanding illegal settlements in northern and southern West Bank “in the shadow of war.”
    Hundreds of protesters in Times Square hold mock funeral procession on Thursday to denounce killing of thousands of Palestinian children by Israeli forces in Gaza.
    Gaza continues to suffer

    Twelve weeks into the Israeli rampage in the Gaza Strip, airstrikes continue to flatten the small Palestinian territory, killing dozens as fighting rages on between Israeli ground forces and Palestinian resistance fighters.

    Deadly Israeli airstrikes were reported since Thursday afternoon in Rafah and Khan Younis in southern Gaza, as well as in the Nuseirat, al-Bureij, and al-Maghazi refugee camps in central Gaza, and in Beit Hanoun and the Gaza City neighborhood of Sheikh Radwan in northern Gaza.

    The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reported at midday on Friday that at least 187 people had been killed and 312 wounded in the span of 24 hours, raising the total toll to at least 21,507 killed and at least 55,915 wounded in the Gaza Strip since October 7.

    Meanwhile, Palestinian groups reported ongoing fighting in the area of Khan Younis, Khuza’a, al-Bureij, Tal al-Zaatar, and various areas in Gaza City – contradicting Israeli claims that the northern Gaza Strip is under full army control.

    The Israeli army has meanwhile announced its plans to expand its operations in Khan Younis, where tens of thousands of internally displaced civilians have fled since October. More than 1.9 million internally displaced Palestinians in what was already one of the most densely populated areas on earth continue to be squeezed into ever tinier slivers of land, with an estimated 100,000 people fleeing to Rafah in recent days alone.

    Israel confirmed the death of one Israeli soldier on Thursday, bringing the official toll of the ground invasion in Gaza to 168 soldiers — although a government gag order prevents Israeli media from reporting on the full scope of military casualties.

    The humanitarian catastrophe Israel has deliberately inflicted on Gaza through its refusal to allow in sufficient aid and its destruction of essential infrastructure has begun to affect its own troops as well. At least one soldier has died as a result of a fungal infection likely due to exposure to sewage leaks, with Israeli media reporting that more soldiers could also suffer from similar infections.

    The impact on Israeli troops pales in comparison to the devastation wrought on Palestinians, who are starving and suffering from a host of injuries and preventable illnesses amid a complete collapse of the medical system.

    The Gaza Ministry of Health announced that 20 patients were scheduled to leave Gaza on Friday to receive medical treatment in Egypt, but noted that many more were in dire need of care they were unable to receive in the bombarded enclave. “Our urgent priority is to evacuate for treatment abroad 5,000 wounded with serious and complex cases to save their lives,” Gaza Ministry of Health spokesperson Ashraf al-Qidra said.

    The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that only 76 trucks of aid were allowed into the Gaza Strip on Thursday, far below the pre-October 7 average of 500 trucks a day.

    “You think getting aid into Gaza is easy? Think again,” U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths posted on X on Friday, listing stringent inspections, bombardments, damaged roads, and desperate civilians crammed into smaller and smaller areas as only some of the obstacles making the delivery of these small amounts of food, medicine, and other essential items even more difficult.

    On Friday morning, an UNRWA official reported that Israeli forces fired at an aid convoy in northern Gaza, even as it was driving on “a route designated by the Israeli army,” damaging one vehicle.

    According to UNRWA, 40 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants are “at risk of famine.” The U.N. has meanwhile activated a Famine Review Committee for Gaza “due to evidence surpassing the acute food insecurity Phase 5,” described as the “catastrophic threshold.”

    Israel has meanwhile continued to target Palestinian health facilities and workers, notably the Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis and Kamal Adwan Hospital in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza, prompting condemnation from Palestinian human rights organizations.

    A Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) paramedic who was detained by Israeli forces in Jabalia said soldiers held him and other paramedics for hours with their hands tied behind their backs, and heavily beat them, including on their heads and “sensitive areas,” and that one of his colleagues was repeatedly hit with rocks. He added that Israeli bulldozers ran over ambulances, destroying them completely. PRCS says at least eight of its staff members are still detained by Israeli forces.

    Al-Qidra said on Thursday that Israel was detaining at least 99 health personnel in “harsh conditions of torture, starvation, and exposure to extreme cold.”

    The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) meanwhile shared the testimony of one of its researchers, Ayman Lubbad, who was detained by Israeli forces for a week earlier this month.

    “Men and boys as young as 14 were instructed to strip and kneel in the street […] They inappropriately photographed us while we were half-naked and forced some of us to dance,” Lubbad said. “Upon learning that I work for a human rights organization, the interrogator threateningly said: ‘I will teach you your rights very well in prison.’”

    Egyptian proposal to be discussed amid internal Israeli turmoil

    Amid the carnage, Egypt reiterated on Thursday that it was awaiting responses to its framework proposal to obtain a ceasefire in Gaza, a hostage swap agreement, and map out future Palestinian governance after the war.

    A Hamas delegation was due in Cairo on Friday to discuss the proposal. In a press conference on Thursday, the Palestinian group said it was open “to any ideas or proposals to stop the aggression completely and finally on our people in the Gaza Strip,” but that there would be no deal to release Israeli hostages until Israeli pummeling of Gaza ceased.

    It nonetheless stressed that “the management of Palestinian affairs is a Palestinian internal decision, and it is the decision of the Palestinian people alone, and our people will not accept a leadership that comes to them on the back of a Zionist or American tank.”

    “Our people today want a national leadership that carries the project of liberation and commits to resistance in all its forms to achieve national goals,” Hamas added.

    Meanwhile, Israeli Finance Minister and far-right extremist settler Bezalel Smotrich dug in his heels on Friday following reports that the U.S. was pressuring Tel Aviv to release Palestinian Authority tax revenue it has been withholding since October 7.

    Because Israel controls all international borders with the occupied Palestinian territories, it collects customs and other forms of revenue on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, the nominal political body operating in the occupied West Bank. However, Israel has repeatedly withheld these taxes over the years as a punitive tactic, regardless of whether the P.A. is involved.

    “As long as I am Finance Minister, not a single shekel will go to the Nazi terrorists in Gaza,” Smotrich wrote on X.

    Smotrich is involved in growing tensions within Israeli leadership, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been facing pressure from the war cabinet — which includes himself, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and opposition leader Benny Gantz — and his far-right coalition government. A war cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for Thursday to discuss scenarios for “the day after” the war was postponed after Smotrich opposed its discussion of any future in which the PA might play a role.

    Netanyahu was facing a slew of corruption charges and internal dissent due to his attempt to hijack the judicial system before the war.

    The Israeli High Court is reportedly set to strike down a key part of the prime minister’s controversial judicial overhaul, according to a draft ruling leaked on Thursday, bringing back to the fore a national debate that had been effectively silenced since October 7.

    Netanyahu is now also facing pressure for his handling of the hostage situation. Thousands of protesters rallied in Jerusalem on Thursday night, calling for the release of hostages.

    An estimated 130 people are still believed to be held by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in Gaza as bargaining chips to obtain the release of thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. While 105 hostages were released during a six-day truce in November, Israel has since failed to release more hostages through combat operations.

    The Israeli army released on Thursday the results of its internal investigation into the killing of three Israeli hostages by Israeli forces earlier this month while they were waving a white flag. The probe found that soldiers shot at the hostages who were calling for help, despite their commander having ordered them not to shoot. The Times of Israel nevertheless reported that “the soldiers involved in the incident were not expected to be dismissed or to stand trial due to their actions.”

    ‘Deadliest year on record’ for children in the West Bank

    At least three Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank since Thursday, as confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinians were reported in several areas during military raids.

    A Palestinian man identified as Ahmad Alyan was killed after allegedly carrying out a stabbing attack at the Israeli military checkpoint of Mizmoria between Jerusalem and Bethlehem on Thursday night, reportedly injuring two Israeli police officers. Israeli forces later raided his family’s home in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabal al-Mukaber, detaining his parents and sister.

    An alleged car-ramming attack took place near the illegal Israeli settlement of Otniel on Friday afternoon, with the driver killed on the spot by Israeli forces. The P.A. Ministry of Health identified the driver as Amr Abdel Fattah Abu Hussein, and said he was killed east of the Palestinian town of Dura.

    Another Palestinian, identified as 38-year-old Muhammad Sayel Al-Jundi from the town of Yatta, was shot and killed by Israeli forces at a checkpoint between Hebron and Bethlehem on Thursday night. WAFA news agency did not provide more detail on the circumstances surrounding his death.

    Israeli forces have continued to violently raid Palestinian towns and villages across the West Bank, provoking clashes in al-Faraa refugee camp, Balata refugee camp, Qalqilya, Rafat, Kafr Aqab, and Ain al-Sultan refugee camp.

    At least three Palestinians were wounded during the Israeli raid in al-Faraa, and another five were detained, in addition to 14 other Palestinians detained overnight across the occupied West Bank. Israeli forces also seized children’s toys in a raid in the southern city of Hebron, WAFA reported.

    In East Jerusalem, Israeli forces once again fired rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas, and skunk water at worshippers seeking to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Friday.

    The spike in violent Israeli repression in the West Bank since October 7 has led the UN to raise the alarm in a report released on Thursday.

    “The use of military tactics means and weapons in law enforcement contexts, the use of unnecessary or disproportionate force, and the enforcement of broad, arbitrary and discriminatory movement restrictions that affect Palestinians are extremely troubling,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said. “The violations documented in this report repeat the pattern and nature of violations reported in the past in the context of the long-standing Israeli occupation of the West Bank. However, the intensity of the violence and repression is something that has not been seen in years.”

    UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa Adele Khodr meanwhile said on Thursday that 2023 was the “deadliest year on record for children in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” with 83 children killed since October 7 alone.

    “Children living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have been experiencing grinding violence for many years, yet the intensity of that violence has dramatically increased,” Khodr said. “The suffering of children in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, must not fade into the background of the current conflict — it is part of it.”

    As Israeli state violence rages on, the settler colonial enterprise continues advancing in violation of international law. Israeli settlers expanded a road in the World Heritage site of Battir near Bethlehem on Thursday, seeking to further entrench a settler outpost built in the area in recent years.

    Peace Now released a new report on Thursday on the expansion of the Battir outpost, as well as the expansion of the Homesh settlement in the northern West Bank “in the shadow of war.”

    “While Israel is at war, Smotrich and his colleagues are asserting facts on the ground that may open up another front in the West Bank,” Peace Now wrote. “If we don’t stop the dream of settlement in the northern West Bank and in Battir, we will wake up to the nightmare of settlements in the Gaza Strip.”

    Before you go - We need your help. Mainstream media’s wilful complicity in the genocide of Palestinian people is a reminder of just how vital our work at Mondoweiss is. This article and our extensive coverage since October 7 have been made possible by readers like you who donate to keep our reporting free and independent.

    With your support, we will continue covering the ongoing events in Gaza and across Palestine, as well as amplifying the Palestine movement worldwide. Together, we will make sure to keep reporting Palestinian stories, even when the rest of the world looks away.

    Support our critical work with a donation today.

    https://mondoweiss.net/2023/12/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-84-gaza-at-catastrophic-threshold-of-famine-west-bank-marks-deadliest-year-on-record-for-palestinian-children/
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 84: Gaza at ‘catastrophic threshold’ of famine, West Bank marks ‘deadliest year on record’ for Palestinian children Israel faces growing tensions between the war cabinet and the far-right coalition government as Egypt presents a ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile, Israeli forces kill at least three Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Mondoweiss Palestine BureauDecember 29, 2023 People struggle to recover bodies and survivors from under the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli airstrike on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, December 28, 2023. (Photo: by Bashar Taleb/APA Images) People struggle to recover bodies and survivors from under the rubble of a building hit by an Israeli airstrike on Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, December 28, 2023. (Photo: by Bashar Taleb/APA Images) Casualties: 21,507 killed* and at least 55,915 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 316 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. *This figure is the latest confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health as of December 29. Due to breakdowns in communication networks within the Gaza Strip, the Ministry of Health in Gaza has been unable to regularly and accurately update its tolls since mid-November. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 30,000 when accounting for those presumed dead. Key Developments Deadly airstrikes pummel several areas across Gaza, killing 187 people in 24 hours. Fighting continues to rage on between Israeli ground troops and Palestinian armed groups, as Israeli army announces an expansion of operations in Khan Younis. U.N. says hunger in Gaza has passed “catastrophic threshold,” as UNRWA estimates 40 percent of the population is at risk of famine while aid barely trickles in. Health and human rights groups denounce Israel’s continued targeting of Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis and Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia amid systematic attacks on the health care system in Gaza. Palestinians who were detained in northern Gaza report threats, violence, and humiliation at the hands of Israeli forces. Hamas delegation heads to Cairo on Friday to discuss Egyptian proposal for ceasefire, reiterates call for complete cessation of Israeli aggression in Gaza, and for Palestinians to determine the shape of their own political future. Israeli leadership torn between war cabinet and far-right elements of coalition government, who refuse to consider possibility of Palestinian Authority involvement in Gaza. Leaked Israeli High Court draft ruling indicates one of most contested clauses of Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul could be struck down, reigniting internal Israeli disputes. Thousands of demonstrators call for release of hostages in Jerusalem i culmination of five days of protests, Israeli army releases probe into killing of three Israeli hostages by own soldiers. Israel continues to shell southern Lebanon and Syria, armed groups in neighboring countries respond. U.S. forces intercept Yemeni drone and missile in Red Sea. Israeli forces shoot and kill a Palestinian man allegedly responsible for stabbing attack at checkpoint near Jerusalem on Thursday, raids home and detains relatives. Palestinian killed by Israeli forces in southern occupied West Bank on Friday following alleged car-ramming attack. Israeli forces detain more than 15 Palestinians during violent overnight raids, as U.N. raises the alarm about the rising violence in the occupied West Bank. Peace Now warns Israel is expanding illegal settlements in northern and southern West Bank “in the shadow of war.” Hundreds of protesters in Times Square hold mock funeral procession on Thursday to denounce killing of thousands of Palestinian children by Israeli forces in Gaza. Gaza continues to suffer Twelve weeks into the Israeli rampage in the Gaza Strip, airstrikes continue to flatten the small Palestinian territory, killing dozens as fighting rages on between Israeli ground forces and Palestinian resistance fighters. Deadly Israeli airstrikes were reported since Thursday afternoon in Rafah and Khan Younis in southern Gaza, as well as in the Nuseirat, al-Bureij, and al-Maghazi refugee camps in central Gaza, and in Beit Hanoun and the Gaza City neighborhood of Sheikh Radwan in northern Gaza. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reported at midday on Friday that at least 187 people had been killed and 312 wounded in the span of 24 hours, raising the total toll to at least 21,507 killed and at least 55,915 wounded in the Gaza Strip since October 7. Meanwhile, Palestinian groups reported ongoing fighting in the area of Khan Younis, Khuza’a, al-Bureij, Tal al-Zaatar, and various areas in Gaza City – contradicting Israeli claims that the northern Gaza Strip is under full army control. The Israeli army has meanwhile announced its plans to expand its operations in Khan Younis, where tens of thousands of internally displaced civilians have fled since October. More than 1.9 million internally displaced Palestinians in what was already one of the most densely populated areas on earth continue to be squeezed into ever tinier slivers of land, with an estimated 100,000 people fleeing to Rafah in recent days alone. Israel confirmed the death of one Israeli soldier on Thursday, bringing the official toll of the ground invasion in Gaza to 168 soldiers — although a government gag order prevents Israeli media from reporting on the full scope of military casualties. The humanitarian catastrophe Israel has deliberately inflicted on Gaza through its refusal to allow in sufficient aid and its destruction of essential infrastructure has begun to affect its own troops as well. At least one soldier has died as a result of a fungal infection likely due to exposure to sewage leaks, with Israeli media reporting that more soldiers could also suffer from similar infections. The impact on Israeli troops pales in comparison to the devastation wrought on Palestinians, who are starving and suffering from a host of injuries and preventable illnesses amid a complete collapse of the medical system. The Gaza Ministry of Health announced that 20 patients were scheduled to leave Gaza on Friday to receive medical treatment in Egypt, but noted that many more were in dire need of care they were unable to receive in the bombarded enclave. “Our urgent priority is to evacuate for treatment abroad 5,000 wounded with serious and complex cases to save their lives,” Gaza Ministry of Health spokesperson Ashraf al-Qidra said. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that only 76 trucks of aid were allowed into the Gaza Strip on Thursday, far below the pre-October 7 average of 500 trucks a day. “You think getting aid into Gaza is easy? Think again,” U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths posted on X on Friday, listing stringent inspections, bombardments, damaged roads, and desperate civilians crammed into smaller and smaller areas as only some of the obstacles making the delivery of these small amounts of food, medicine, and other essential items even more difficult. On Friday morning, an UNRWA official reported that Israeli forces fired at an aid convoy in northern Gaza, even as it was driving on “a route designated by the Israeli army,” damaging one vehicle. According to UNRWA, 40 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants are “at risk of famine.” The U.N. has meanwhile activated a Famine Review Committee for Gaza “due to evidence surpassing the acute food insecurity Phase 5,” described as the “catastrophic threshold.” Israel has meanwhile continued to target Palestinian health facilities and workers, notably the Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis and Kamal Adwan Hospital in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza, prompting condemnation from Palestinian human rights organizations. A Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) paramedic who was detained by Israeli forces in Jabalia said soldiers held him and other paramedics for hours with their hands tied behind their backs, and heavily beat them, including on their heads and “sensitive areas,” and that one of his colleagues was repeatedly hit with rocks. He added that Israeli bulldozers ran over ambulances, destroying them completely. PRCS says at least eight of its staff members are still detained by Israeli forces. Al-Qidra said on Thursday that Israel was detaining at least 99 health personnel in “harsh conditions of torture, starvation, and exposure to extreme cold.” The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) meanwhile shared the testimony of one of its researchers, Ayman Lubbad, who was detained by Israeli forces for a week earlier this month. “Men and boys as young as 14 were instructed to strip and kneel in the street […] They inappropriately photographed us while we were half-naked and forced some of us to dance,” Lubbad said. “Upon learning that I work for a human rights organization, the interrogator threateningly said: ‘I will teach you your rights very well in prison.’” Egyptian proposal to be discussed amid internal Israeli turmoil Amid the carnage, Egypt reiterated on Thursday that it was awaiting responses to its framework proposal to obtain a ceasefire in Gaza, a hostage swap agreement, and map out future Palestinian governance after the war. A Hamas delegation was due in Cairo on Friday to discuss the proposal. In a press conference on Thursday, the Palestinian group said it was open “to any ideas or proposals to stop the aggression completely and finally on our people in the Gaza Strip,” but that there would be no deal to release Israeli hostages until Israeli pummeling of Gaza ceased. It nonetheless stressed that “the management of Palestinian affairs is a Palestinian internal decision, and it is the decision of the Palestinian people alone, and our people will not accept a leadership that comes to them on the back of a Zionist or American tank.” “Our people today want a national leadership that carries the project of liberation and commits to resistance in all its forms to achieve national goals,” Hamas added. Meanwhile, Israeli Finance Minister and far-right extremist settler Bezalel Smotrich dug in his heels on Friday following reports that the U.S. was pressuring Tel Aviv to release Palestinian Authority tax revenue it has been withholding since October 7. Because Israel controls all international borders with the occupied Palestinian territories, it collects customs and other forms of revenue on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, the nominal political body operating in the occupied West Bank. However, Israel has repeatedly withheld these taxes over the years as a punitive tactic, regardless of whether the P.A. is involved. “As long as I am Finance Minister, not a single shekel will go to the Nazi terrorists in Gaza,” Smotrich wrote on X. Smotrich is involved in growing tensions within Israeli leadership, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been facing pressure from the war cabinet — which includes himself, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and opposition leader Benny Gantz — and his far-right coalition government. A war cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for Thursday to discuss scenarios for “the day after” the war was postponed after Smotrich opposed its discussion of any future in which the PA might play a role. Netanyahu was facing a slew of corruption charges and internal dissent due to his attempt to hijack the judicial system before the war. The Israeli High Court is reportedly set to strike down a key part of the prime minister’s controversial judicial overhaul, according to a draft ruling leaked on Thursday, bringing back to the fore a national debate that had been effectively silenced since October 7. Netanyahu is now also facing pressure for his handling of the hostage situation. Thousands of protesters rallied in Jerusalem on Thursday night, calling for the release of hostages. An estimated 130 people are still believed to be held by Hamas and other Palestinian groups in Gaza as bargaining chips to obtain the release of thousands of Palestinians imprisoned by Israel. While 105 hostages were released during a six-day truce in November, Israel has since failed to release more hostages through combat operations. The Israeli army released on Thursday the results of its internal investigation into the killing of three Israeli hostages by Israeli forces earlier this month while they were waving a white flag. The probe found that soldiers shot at the hostages who were calling for help, despite their commander having ordered them not to shoot. The Times of Israel nevertheless reported that “the soldiers involved in the incident were not expected to be dismissed or to stand trial due to their actions.” ‘Deadliest year on record’ for children in the West Bank At least three Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank since Thursday, as confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinians were reported in several areas during military raids. A Palestinian man identified as Ahmad Alyan was killed after allegedly carrying out a stabbing attack at the Israeli military checkpoint of Mizmoria between Jerusalem and Bethlehem on Thursday night, reportedly injuring two Israeli police officers. Israeli forces later raided his family’s home in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabal al-Mukaber, detaining his parents and sister. An alleged car-ramming attack took place near the illegal Israeli settlement of Otniel on Friday afternoon, with the driver killed on the spot by Israeli forces. The P.A. Ministry of Health identified the driver as Amr Abdel Fattah Abu Hussein, and said he was killed east of the Palestinian town of Dura. Another Palestinian, identified as 38-year-old Muhammad Sayel Al-Jundi from the town of Yatta, was shot and killed by Israeli forces at a checkpoint between Hebron and Bethlehem on Thursday night. WAFA news agency did not provide more detail on the circumstances surrounding his death. Israeli forces have continued to violently raid Palestinian towns and villages across the West Bank, provoking clashes in al-Faraa refugee camp, Balata refugee camp, Qalqilya, Rafat, Kafr Aqab, and Ain al-Sultan refugee camp. At least three Palestinians were wounded during the Israeli raid in al-Faraa, and another five were detained, in addition to 14 other Palestinians detained overnight across the occupied West Bank. Israeli forces also seized children’s toys in a raid in the southern city of Hebron, WAFA reported. In East Jerusalem, Israeli forces once again fired rubber-coated metal bullets, tear gas, and skunk water at worshippers seeking to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Friday. The spike in violent Israeli repression in the West Bank since October 7 has led the UN to raise the alarm in a report released on Thursday. “The use of military tactics means and weapons in law enforcement contexts, the use of unnecessary or disproportionate force, and the enforcement of broad, arbitrary and discriminatory movement restrictions that affect Palestinians are extremely troubling,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said. “The violations documented in this report repeat the pattern and nature of violations reported in the past in the context of the long-standing Israeli occupation of the West Bank. However, the intensity of the violence and repression is something that has not been seen in years.” UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa Adele Khodr meanwhile said on Thursday that 2023 was the “deadliest year on record for children in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem,” with 83 children killed since October 7 alone. “Children living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, have been experiencing grinding violence for many years, yet the intensity of that violence has dramatically increased,” Khodr said. “The suffering of children in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, must not fade into the background of the current conflict — it is part of it.” As Israeli state violence rages on, the settler colonial enterprise continues advancing in violation of international law. Israeli settlers expanded a road in the World Heritage site of Battir near Bethlehem on Thursday, seeking to further entrench a settler outpost built in the area in recent years. Peace Now released a new report on Thursday on the expansion of the Battir outpost, as well as the expansion of the Homesh settlement in the northern West Bank “in the shadow of war.” “While Israel is at war, Smotrich and his colleagues are asserting facts on the ground that may open up another front in the West Bank,” Peace Now wrote. “If we don’t stop the dream of settlement in the northern West Bank and in Battir, we will wake up to the nightmare of settlements in the Gaza Strip.” Before you go - We need your help. Mainstream media’s wilful complicity in the genocide of Palestinian people is a reminder of just how vital our work at Mondoweiss is. This article and our extensive coverage since October 7 have been made possible by readers like you who donate to keep our reporting free and independent. With your support, we will continue covering the ongoing events in Gaza and across Palestine, as well as amplifying the Palestine movement worldwide. Together, we will make sure to keep reporting Palestinian stories, even when the rest of the world looks away. Support our critical work with a donation today. https://mondoweiss.net/2023/12/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-84-gaza-at-catastrophic-threshold-of-famine-west-bank-marks-deadliest-year-on-record-for-palestinian-children/
    MONDOWEISS.NET
    ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 84: Gaza at ‘catastrophic threshold’ of famine, West Bank marks ‘deadliest year on record’ for Palestinian children
    Israel faces growing tensions between the war cabinet and the far-right coalition government as Egypt presents a ceasefire proposal. Meanwhile, Israeli forces kill at least three Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
    1 Comments 0 Shares 17927 Views
  • The choice of programming language for the backend of a web application depends on various factors such as the project requirements, developer expertise, and the specific use case. Several programming languages are commonly used for backend development. Some of the popular ones include:

    Java: Known for its portability and scalability, Java is widely used in enterprise-level applications.

    Python: Loved for its readability and versatility, Python is commonly used in web development with frameworks like Django and Flask.

    JavaScript (Node.js): JavaScript, traditionally a front-end language, is also used on the server side with the Node.js runtime, making it possible to use a single language (JavaScript) for both frontend and backend development.

    Ruby: Often associated with the Ruby on Rails framework, Ruby is known for its developer-friendly syntax and rapid development capabilities.

    PHP: A server-side scripting language that is often used for web development, especially with popular frameworks like Laravel.

    C#: Commonly used in conjunction with the ASP.NET framework for building scalable and robust web applications, particularly in the Microsoft ecosystem.

    Go (Golang): Developed by Google, Go is known for its efficiency and is used in backend development, especially in applications where performance is critical.

    Scala: A language that runs on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and is often used in combination with the Play Framework for building scalable and reactive web applications.

    Rust: Known for its focus on performance and safety, Rust is gaining popularity in backend development, particularly in systems programming.

    The choice of a backend programming language often depends on factors like project requirements, developer expertise, and the specific goals of the application. Many modern web applications use a combination of backend technologies, such as microservices architecture, where different services can be written in different languages based on their specific requirements.
    The choice of programming language for the backend of a web application depends on various factors such as the project requirements, developer expertise, and the specific use case. Several programming languages are commonly used for backend development. Some of the popular ones include: Java: Known for its portability and scalability, Java is widely used in enterprise-level applications. Python: Loved for its readability and versatility, Python is commonly used in web development with frameworks like Django and Flask. JavaScript (Node.js): JavaScript, traditionally a front-end language, is also used on the server side with the Node.js runtime, making it possible to use a single language (JavaScript) for both frontend and backend development. Ruby: Often associated with the Ruby on Rails framework, Ruby is known for its developer-friendly syntax and rapid development capabilities. PHP: A server-side scripting language that is often used for web development, especially with popular frameworks like Laravel. C#: Commonly used in conjunction with the ASP.NET framework for building scalable and robust web applications, particularly in the Microsoft ecosystem. Go (Golang): Developed by Google, Go is known for its efficiency and is used in backend development, especially in applications where performance is critical. Scala: A language that runs on the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and is often used in combination with the Play Framework for building scalable and reactive web applications. Rust: Known for its focus on performance and safety, Rust is gaining popularity in backend development, particularly in systems programming. The choice of a backend programming language often depends on factors like project requirements, developer expertise, and the specific goals of the application. Many modern web applications use a combination of backend technologies, such as microservices architecture, where different services can be written in different languages based on their specific requirements.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3786 Views
  • Certainly! If you're interested in creating an assistant program, there are several ways to approach it depending on your goals and the context in which you want to deploy the assistant. Here are some general steps and considerations:
    Define the Purpose:

    Identify the purpose: Clearly define what tasks or functions you want your assistant to perform. It could be anything from answering questions, providing information, automating tasks, or even engaging in conversation.

    Choose a Platform:

    Select a platform: Decide where your assistant will be deployed. It could be a web application, a mobile app, a chatbot on messaging platforms, or even a standalone desktop application.

    Technologies and Tools:

    Choose the technology stack: Based on your platform choice, select the appropriate technologies and tools. For example, if you're creating a chatbot, you might use frameworks like Rasa, Dialogflow, or Microsoft Bot Framework.

    Natural Language Processing (NLP):

    Implement NLP: If your assistant involves understanding and generating natural language, integrate a Natural Language Processing (NLP) component. This is crucial for tasks like language understanding, sentiment analysis, and text generation.

    Data:

    Collect and preprocess data: Depending on your assistant's functions, you might need a dataset for training machine learning models or for improving language understanding.

    Machine Learning (Optional):

    Implement machine learning (if needed): If your assistant requires learning from user interactions, implement machine learning algorithms. This is common in chatbots that get better at understanding user queries over time.

    User Interface (UI):

    Design the user interface: Create an intuitive and user-friendly interface. This is crucial for user engagement. If it's a chatbot, design conversation flows and responses.

    Integration:

    Integrate external services: If your assistant needs to interact with external services or APIs, integrate them seamlessly into your application.

    Testing:

    Testing: Rigorously test your assistant to ensure it performs as expected. Test different scenarios, handle edge cases, and refine your assistant based on user feedback.

    Deployment:

    Deployment: Once satisfied with testing, deploy your assistant to the chosen platform.

    Maintenance and Updates:

    Maintenance and updates: Regularly update your assistant to improve performance, fix bugs, and add new features. Pay attention to user feedback for continuous improvement.

    Privacy and Security:

    Privacy and security: If your assistant deals with sensitive information, prioritize privacy and security. Implement encryption, secure connections, and follow best practices for data protection.

    User Feedback:

    Collect user feedback: Encourage users to provide feedback, and use it to make improvements. Continuous feedback helps in refining and enhancing the assistant's capabilities.

    Remember that the specific steps and technologies may vary depending on the complexity and scope of your assistant. This is a general guideline to get you started.
    Certainly! If you're interested in creating an assistant program, there are several ways to approach it depending on your goals and the context in which you want to deploy the assistant. Here are some general steps and considerations: Define the Purpose: Identify the purpose: Clearly define what tasks or functions you want your assistant to perform. It could be anything from answering questions, providing information, automating tasks, or even engaging in conversation. Choose a Platform: Select a platform: Decide where your assistant will be deployed. It could be a web application, a mobile app, a chatbot on messaging platforms, or even a standalone desktop application. Technologies and Tools: Choose the technology stack: Based on your platform choice, select the appropriate technologies and tools. For example, if you're creating a chatbot, you might use frameworks like Rasa, Dialogflow, or Microsoft Bot Framework. Natural Language Processing (NLP): Implement NLP: If your assistant involves understanding and generating natural language, integrate a Natural Language Processing (NLP) component. This is crucial for tasks like language understanding, sentiment analysis, and text generation. Data: Collect and preprocess data: Depending on your assistant's functions, you might need a dataset for training machine learning models or for improving language understanding. Machine Learning (Optional): Implement machine learning (if needed): If your assistant requires learning from user interactions, implement machine learning algorithms. This is common in chatbots that get better at understanding user queries over time. User Interface (UI): Design the user interface: Create an intuitive and user-friendly interface. This is crucial for user engagement. If it's a chatbot, design conversation flows and responses. Integration: Integrate external services: If your assistant needs to interact with external services or APIs, integrate them seamlessly into your application. Testing: Testing: Rigorously test your assistant to ensure it performs as expected. Test different scenarios, handle edge cases, and refine your assistant based on user feedback. Deployment: Deployment: Once satisfied with testing, deploy your assistant to the chosen platform. Maintenance and Updates: Maintenance and updates: Regularly update your assistant to improve performance, fix bugs, and add new features. Pay attention to user feedback for continuous improvement. Privacy and Security: Privacy and security: If your assistant deals with sensitive information, prioritize privacy and security. Implement encryption, secure connections, and follow best practices for data protection. User Feedback: Collect user feedback: Encourage users to provide feedback, and use it to make improvements. Continuous feedback helps in refining and enhancing the assistant's capabilities. Remember that the specific steps and technologies may vary depending on the complexity and scope of your assistant. This is a general guideline to get you started.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6225 Views
  • ChatGPT

    An AI chatbot is a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human users, especially over the internet. These chatbots use artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning, to understand and respond to user inputs.

    Here are some key aspects of AI chatbots:

    Natural Language Processing (NLP): NLP is a field of AI that focuses on the interaction between computers and humans through natural language. It allows chatbots to understand and interpret user inputs in a way that makes sense.

    Machine Learning: Many chatbots use machine learning algorithms to improve their performance over time. They can learn from user interactions and feedback, continuously refining their responses and capabilities.

    User Intent Recognition: Chatbots aim to understand the user's intent behind their messages. This involves recognizing the meaning and context of the user's input to provide relevant and accurate responses.

    Types of Chatbots:
    Rule-Based Chatbots: These follow predefined rules and decision trees to respond to user inputs. They are limited to the programmed rules and may not handle complex scenarios well.
    AI-Powered Chatbots: These leverage machine learning and NLP to understand and respond to user inputs. They are more adaptive and can handle a wider range of conversations.

    Use Cases:
    Customer Support: Chatbots are often used to handle routine customer queries, providing quick and consistent responses.
    Virtual Assistants: AI chatbots can act as virtual assistants, helping users with tasks like setting reminders, answering questions, or providing information.
    E-commerce: Chatbots are used in online shopping platforms to assist users in finding products, placing orders, and answering product-related queries.

    Challenges:
    Ambiguity: Understanding ambiguous or complex language can be challenging for chatbots.
    Ethical Concerns: Issues related to privacy, data security, and bias in AI systems need to be carefully addressed.
    Continuous Learning: Ensuring that chatbots evolve and improve over time requires ongoing efforts in training and updating their algorithms.

    Integration with Other Technologies: Chatbots can be integrated with other technologies such as voice recognition, sentiment analysis, and data analytics to enhance their capabilities.

    Development Platforms: Various platforms and frameworks, both open-source and proprietary, exist for building AI chatbots. Examples include Dialogflow, Microsoft Bot Framework, and Rasa.

    AI chatbots continue to evolve, and their applications are expanding across various industries as technology advances. They play a crucial role in improving user experiences, automating tasks, and providing efficient and scalable solutions.
    ChatGPT An AI chatbot is a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human users, especially over the internet. These chatbots use artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning, to understand and respond to user inputs. Here are some key aspects of AI chatbots: Natural Language Processing (NLP): NLP is a field of AI that focuses on the interaction between computers and humans through natural language. It allows chatbots to understand and interpret user inputs in a way that makes sense. Machine Learning: Many chatbots use machine learning algorithms to improve their performance over time. They can learn from user interactions and feedback, continuously refining their responses and capabilities. User Intent Recognition: Chatbots aim to understand the user's intent behind their messages. This involves recognizing the meaning and context of the user's input to provide relevant and accurate responses. Types of Chatbots: Rule-Based Chatbots: These follow predefined rules and decision trees to respond to user inputs. They are limited to the programmed rules and may not handle complex scenarios well. AI-Powered Chatbots: These leverage machine learning and NLP to understand and respond to user inputs. They are more adaptive and can handle a wider range of conversations. Use Cases: Customer Support: Chatbots are often used to handle routine customer queries, providing quick and consistent responses. Virtual Assistants: AI chatbots can act as virtual assistants, helping users with tasks like setting reminders, answering questions, or providing information. E-commerce: Chatbots are used in online shopping platforms to assist users in finding products, placing orders, and answering product-related queries. Challenges: Ambiguity: Understanding ambiguous or complex language can be challenging for chatbots. Ethical Concerns: Issues related to privacy, data security, and bias in AI systems need to be carefully addressed. Continuous Learning: Ensuring that chatbots evolve and improve over time requires ongoing efforts in training and updating their algorithms. Integration with Other Technologies: Chatbots can be integrated with other technologies such as voice recognition, sentiment analysis, and data analytics to enhance their capabilities. Development Platforms: Various platforms and frameworks, both open-source and proprietary, exist for building AI chatbots. Examples include Dialogflow, Microsoft Bot Framework, and Rasa. AI chatbots continue to evolve, and their applications are expanding across various industries as technology advances. They play a crucial role in improving user experiences, automating tasks, and providing efficient and scalable solutions.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 5660 Views
More Results