Why Does the WHO Make False Claims Regarding Proposals to Seize States’ Sovereignty?
By David Bell, Thi Thuy Van Dinh December 11, 2023 Government, Law, Public Health 15 minute read
The Director General (DG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) states:

No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO,

referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to.

A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:

The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to the WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
The WHO DG will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence, and ethics.

The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in Nations and individuals to the WHO, when its DG decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for Nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications.

The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic States. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here.

The Proposed IHR Amendments and Sovereignty in Health Decision-Making

Amending the 2005 IHR may be a straightforward way to quickly deploy and enforce “new normal” health control measures. The current text applies to virtually the entire global population, counting 196 States Parties including all 194 WHO Member States. Approval may or may not require a formal vote of the World Health Assembly (WHA), as the recent 2022 amendment was adopted through consensus. If the same approval mechanism is to be used in May 2024, many countries and the public may remain unaware of the broad scope of the new text and its implications to national and individual sovereignty.

The IHR are a set of recommendations under a treaty process that has force under international law. They seek to provide the WHO with some moral authority to coordinate and lead responses when an international health emergency, such as pandemic, occurs. Most are non-binding, and these contain very specific examples of measures that the WHO can recommend, including (Article 18):

require medical examinations;
review proof of vaccination or other prophylaxis;
require vaccination or other prophylaxis;
place suspect persons under public health observation;
implement quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons;
implement isolation and treatment where necessary of affected persons;
implement tracing of contacts of suspect or affected persons;
refuse entry of suspect and affected persons;
refuse entry of unaffected persons to affected areas; and
implement exit screening and/or restrictions on persons from affected areas.
These measures, when implemented together, are generally referred to since early 2020 as ‘lockdowns’ and ‘mandates.’ ‘Lockdown’ was previously a term reserved for people incarcerated as criminals, as it removes basic universally accepted human rights and such measures were considered by the WHO to be detrimental to public health. However, since 2020 it has become the default standard for public health authorities to manage epidemics, despite its contradictions to multiple stipulations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind including no arbitrary detention (Article 9).
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence (Article 12).
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country (Article 13).
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers (Article 19).
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (Article 20).
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government (Article 21).
Everyone has the right to work (Article 23).
Everyone has the right to education (Article 26).
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized (Article 28).
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein (Article 30).
These UDHR stipulations are the basis of the modern concept of individual sovereignty, and the relationship between authorities and their populations. Considered the highest codification of the rights and freedoms of individuals in the 20th century, they may soon be dismantled behind closed doors in a meeting room in Geneva.

The proposed amendments will change the “recommendations” of the current document to requirements through three mechanisms on

Removing the term ‘non-binding’ (Article 1),
Inserting the phrase that Member States will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations” and recognize WHO, not as an organization under the control of countries, but as the “coordinating authority” (New Article 13A).
States Parties recognize WHO as the guidance and coordinating authority of international public health response during public health Emergency of International Concern and undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations in their international public health response.

As Article 18 makes clear above, these include multiple actions directly restricting individual liberty. If transfer of decision-making power (sovereignty) is not intended here, then the current status of the IHR as ‘recommendations’ could remain and countries would not be undertaking to follow the WHO’s requirements.

States Parties undertake to enact what previously were merely recommendations, without delay, including requirements of WHO regarding non-State entities under their jurisdiction (Article 42):
Health measures taken pursuant to these Regulations, including the recommendations made under Articles 15 and 16, shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties and applied in a transparent, equitable and non-discriminatory manner. State Parties shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.

Articles 15 and 16 mentioned here allow the WHO to require a State to provide resources “health products, technologies, and know-how,” and to allow the WHO to deploy personnel into the country (i.e., have control over entry across national borders for those they choose). They also repeat the requirement for the country to require the implementation of medical countermeasures (e.g., testing, vaccines, quarantine) on their population where WHO demands it.

Of note, the proposed Article 1 amendment (removing ‘non-binding’) is actually redundant if New Article 13A and/or the changes in Article 42 remain. This can (and likely will) be removed from the final text, giving an appearance of compromise without changing the transfer of sovereignty.

All of the public health measures in Article 18, and additional ones such as limiting freedom of speech to reduce public exposure to alternative viewpoints (Annex 1, New 5 (e); “…counter misinformation and disinformation”) clash directly with the UDHR. Although freedom of speech is currently the exclusive purview of national authorities and its restriction is generally seen as negative and abusive, United Nations institutions, including the WHO, have been advocating for censoring unofficial views in order to protect what they call “information integrity.”

It seems outrageous from a human rights perspective that the amendments will enable the WHO to dictate countries to require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic. While the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Helsinki refer specifically to human experimentation (e.g. clinical trials of vaccines) and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights also to the provider-patient relationship, they can reasonably be extended to public health measures that impose restrictions or changes to human behavior, and specifically to any measures requiring injection, medication, or medical examination which involve a direct provider-person interaction.

If vaccines or drugs are still under trial or not fully tested, then the issue of being the subject of an experiment is also real. There is a clear intent to employ the CEPI ‘100 day’ vaccine program, which by definition cannot complete meaningful safety or efficacy trials within that time span.

Forced examination or medication, outside of a situation where the recipient is clearly not mentally competent to comply or reject when provided with information, is unethical. Requiring compliance in order to access what are considered basic human rights under the UDHR would constitute coercion. If this does not fit the WHO’s definition of infringement on individual sovereignty, and on national sovereignty, then the DG and his supporters need to publicly explain what definition they are using.

The Proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement as a Tool to Manage Transfer of Sovereignty

The proposed pandemic agreement will set humanity in a new era strangely organized around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic, and inter-pandemic. A new governance structure under WHO auspices will oversee the IHR amendments and related initiatives. It will rely on new funding requirements, including the WHO’s ability to demand additional funding and materials from countries and to run a supply network to support its work in health emergencies (Article 12):

In the event of a pandemic, real-time access by WHO to a minimum of 20% (10% as a donation and 10% at affordable prices to WHO) of the production of safe, efficacious and effective pandemic-related products for distribution based on public health risks and needs, with the understanding that each Party that has manufacturing facilities that produce pandemic-related products in its jurisdiction shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the export of such pandemic-related products, in accordance with timetables to be agreed between WHO and manufacturers.

And Article 20 (1):

…provide support and assistance to other Parties, upon request, to facilitate the containment of spill-over at the source.

The entire structure will be financed by a new funding stream separate from current WHO funding – an additional requirement on taxpayers over current national commitments (Article 20 (2)). The funding will also include an endowment of voluntary contributions of “all relevant sectors that benefit from international work to strengthen pandemic preparation, preparedness and response” and donations from philanthropic organizations (Article 20 (2)b).

Currently, countries decide on foreign aid on the basis of national priorities, apart from limited funding that they have agreed to allocate to organizations such as WHO under existing obligations or treaties. The proposed agreement is remarkable not just in greatly increasing the amount countries must give as treaty requirements, but in setting up a parallel funding structure disconnected from other disease priorities (quite the opposite of previous ideas on integration in health financing). It also gives power to an external group, not directly accountable, to demand or acquire further resources whenever it deems necessary.

In a further encroachment into what is normally within the legal jurisdiction of Nation States, the agreement will require countries to establish (Article 15) “…, no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s),…”, consecrating effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorization, or indeed requires countries to mandate onto their citizens.

As is becoming increasingly acceptable for those in power, ratifying countries will agree to limit the right of their public to voice opposition to the WHO’s measures and claims regarding such an emergency (Article 18):

…and combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation…

As we have seen during the Covid-19 response, the definition of misleading information can be dependent on political or commercial expediency, including factual information on vaccine efficacy and safety and orthodox immunology that could impair the sale of health commodities. This is why open democracies put such emphasis on defending free speech, even at the risk of sometimes being misleading. In signing on to this agreement, governments will be agreeing to abrogate that principle regarding their own citizens when instructed by the WHO.

The scope of this proposed agreement (and the IHR amendments) is broader than pandemics, greatly expanding the scope under which a transfer of decision-making powers can be demanded. Other environmental threats to health, such as changes in climate, can be declared emergencies at the DG’s discretion, if broad definitions of ‘One Health’ are adopted as recommended.

It is difficult to think of another international instrument where such powers over national resources are passed to an unelected external organization, and it is even more challenging to envision how this is seen as anything other than a loss of sovereignty. The only justification for this claim would appear to be if the draft agreement is to be signed on the basis of deceit – that there is no intention to treat it other than as an irrelevant piece of paper or something that should only apply to less powerful States (i.e. a colonialist tool).

Will the IHR Amendments and the Proposed Pandemic Agreement be Legally Binding?

Both texts are intended to be legally binding. The IHR already has such status, so the impact of the proposed changes on the need for new acceptance by countries are complicated national jurisdictional issues. There is a current mechanism for rejection of new amendments. However, unless a high number of countries will actively voice their oppositions and rejections, the adoption of the current published version dated February 2023 will likely lead to a future shadowed by the permanent risks of the WHO’s lockdown and lockstep dictates.

The proposed pandemic agreement is also clearly intended to be legally binding. WHO discusses this issue on the website of the International Negotiating Body (INB) that is working on the text. The same legally binding intent is specifically stated by the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration in 2022:

We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument that should contain both legally binding and non-legally binding elements to strengthen pandemic PPR…,

repeated in the 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration:

…an ambitious, legally binding WHO convention, agreement or other international instruments on pandemic PPR (WHO CA+) by May 2024,

and by the Council of the European Union:

A convention, agreement or other international instrument is legally binding under international Law. An agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response adopted under the World Health Organization (WHO) would enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.

The IHR already has standing under international law.

While seeking such status, WHO officials who previously described the proposed agreement as a ‘treaty” are now insisting neither instrument impacts sovereignty. The implication that it is States’ representatives at the WHA that will agree to the transfer, rather than the WHO, is a nuance irrelevant to its claims regarding their subsequent effect.

The WHO’s position raises a real question of whether its leadership is truly ignorant of what is proposed, or is actively seeking to mislead countries and the public in order to increase the probability of acceptance. The latest version dated 30 October 2023 requires 40 ratifications for the future agreement to enter into force, after a two-thirds vote in favor within the WHA. Opposition by a considerable number of countries will therefore be needed to derail this project. As it is backed by powerful governments and institutions, financial mechanisms including IMF and World Bank instruments and bilateral aids are likely to make opposition from lower-income countries difficult to sustain.

The Implications of Ignoring the Issue of Sovereignty

The relevant question regarding these two WHO instruments should really be not whether sovereignty is threatened, but why any sovereignty would be forfeited by democratic States to an organization that is (i) significantly privately funded and bound to obey the dictates of corporations and self-proclaimed philanthropists and (ii) jointly governed by Member States, half of which don’t even claim to be open representative democracies.

If it is indeed true that sovereignty is being knowingly forfeited by governments without the knowledge and consent of their peoples, and based on false claims from governments and the WHO, then the implications are extremely serious. It would imply that leaders were working directly against their peoples’ or national interest, and in support of external interests. Most countries have specific fundamental laws dealing with such practice. So, it is really important for those defending these projects to either explain their definitions of sovereignty and democratic process, or explicitly seek informed public consent.

The other question to be asked is why public health authorities and media are repeating the WHO’s assurances of the benign nature of the pandemic instruments. It asserts that claims of reduced sovereignty are ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation,’ which they assert elsewhere are major killers of humankind. While such claims are somewhat ludicrous and appear intended to denigrate dissenters, the WHO is clearly guilty of that which it claims is such a crime. If its leadership cannot demonstrate how its claims regarding these pandemic instruments are not deliberately misleading, its leadership would appear ethically compelled to resign.

The Need for Clarification

The WHO lists three major pandemics in the past century – influenza outbreaks in the late 1950s and 1960s, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The first two killed less than die each year today from tuberculosis, whilst the reported deaths from Covid-19 never reached the level of cancer or cardiovascular disease and remained almost irrelevant in low-income countries compared to endemic infectious diseases including tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDs.

No other non-influenza outbreak recorded by the WHO that fits the definition of a pandemic (e.g., rapid spread across international borders for a limited time of a pathogen not normally causing significant harm) has caused greater mortality in total than a few days of tuberculosis (about 4,000/day) or more life-years lost than a few days of malaria (about 1,500 children under 5 years old every day).

So, if it is indeed the case that our authorities and their supporters within the public health community consider that powers currently vested within national jurisdictions should be given over to external bodies on the basis of this level of recorded harm, it would be best to have a public conversation as to whether this is sufficient basis for abandoning democratic ideals in favor of a more fascist or otherwise authoritarian approach. We are, after all, talking about restricting basic human rights essential for a democracy to function.

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

Authors

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

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

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

https://brownstone.org/articles/why-does-the-who-make-false-claims-regarding-proposals-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

Meta Refuses to Answer Questions on Gaza Censorship, Say Sens. Warren and Sanders
Sam BiddleMarch 26 2024, 8:00 a.m.
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 03: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questions U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as he testifies at a Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on the Fed's "Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress," on Capitol Hill on March 3, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Tom Williams-Pool/Getty Images)
Citing the company’s “failure to provide answers to important questions,” Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are pressing Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, to respond to reports of disproportionate censorship around the Israeli war on Gaza.

“Meta insists that there’s been no discrimination against Palestinian-related content on their platforms, but at the same time, is refusing to provide us with any evidence or data to support that claim,” Warren told The Intercept. “If its ad-hoc changes and removal of millions of posts didn’t discriminate against Palestinian-related content, then what’s Meta hiding?”

In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent last December, first reported by The Intercept, Warren presented the company with dozens of specific questions about the company’s Gaza-related content moderation efforts. Warren asked about the exact numbers of posts about the war, broken down by Hebrew or Arabic, that have been deleted or otherwise suppressed.

The letter was written following widespread reporting in The Intercept and other outlets that detailed how posts on Meta platforms that are sympathetic to Palestinians, or merely depicting the destruction in Gaza, are routinely removed or hidden without explanation.

A month later, Meta replied to Warren’s office with a six-page letter, obtained by The Intercept, that provided an overview of its moderation response to the war but little in the way of specifics or new information.

Most Read

“Meta’s lack of investment to safeguard its users significantly exacerbates the political situation in Palestine and perpetuates tech harms on fundamental rights in Palestine and other global majority countries, all while evading meaningful legal accountability,” Mona Shtaya, nonresident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, told The Intercept. “The time has come for Meta, among other tech giants, to publicly disclose detailed measures and investments aimed at safeguarding individuals amidst the ongoing genocide, and to be more responsive to experts and civil society.”

Meta’s reply disclosed some censorship: “In the nine days following October 7, we removed or marked as disturbing more than 2,200,000 pieces of content in Hebrew and Arabic for violating our policies.” The company declined, however, to provide a breakdown of deletions by language or market, making it impossible to tell whether that figure reflects discriminatory moderation practices.

Much of Meta’s letter is a rehash of an update it provided through its public relations portal at the war’s onset, some of it verbatim.

Now, a second letter from Warren to Meta, joined this time by Sanders, says this isn’t enough. “Meta’s response, dated January 29, 2024, did not provide any of the requested information necessary to understand Meta’s treatment of Arabic language or Palestine-related content versus other forms of content,” the senators wrote.

Both senators are asking Meta to again answer Warren’s specific questions about the extent to which Arabic and Hebrew posts about the war have been treated differently, how often censored posts are reinstated, Meta’s use of automated machine learning-based censorship tools, and more.

Accusations of systemic moderation bias against Palestinians have been borne out by research from rights groups.

“Since October 7, Human Rights Watch has documented over 1,000 cases of unjustified takedowns and other suppression of content on Instagram and Facebook related to Palestine and Palestinians, including about human rights abuses,” Human Rights Watch said in a late December report. “The censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook is systemic, global, and a product of the company’s failure to meet its human rights due diligence responsibilities.”


Related

Meta Considering Increased Censorship of the Word “Zionist”

A February report by AccessNow said Meta “suspended or restricted the accounts of Palestinian journalists and activists both in and outside of Gaza, and arbitrarily deleted a considerable amount of content, including documentation of atrocities and human rights abuses.”

A third-party audit commissioned by Meta itself previously concluded it had given the short shrift to Palestinian rights during a May 2021 flare-up of violence between Israel and Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. “Meta’s actions in May 2021 appear to have had an adverse human rights impact … on the rights of Palestinian users to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, political participation, and non-discrimination, and therefore on the ability of Palestinians to share information and insights about their experiences as they occurred,” said the auditor’s report.

In response to this audit, Meta pledged an array of reforms, which free expression and digital rights advocates say have yet to produce a material improvement.

In its December report, Human Rights Watch noted, “More than two years after committing to publishing data around government requests for taking down content that is not necessarily illegal, Meta has failed to increase transparency in this area.”

Update: March 26, 2024, 1:11 p.m. ET
This story has been updated to include a statement received after publication from Mona Shtaya, a nonresident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy.

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/26/meta-gaza-censorship-warren-sanders/

The Silent Shame of Health Institutions
J.R. Bruning
For how much longer will health policy ignore multimorbidity, that looming, giant elephant in the room, that propagates and amplifies suffering? For how much longer will the ‘trend’ of increasing diagnoses of multiple health conditions, at younger and younger ages be rendered down by government agencies to better and more efficient services, screening modalities, and drug choices?

Multimorbidity, the presence of many chronic conditions, is the silent shame of health policy.

All too often chronic conditions overlap and accumulate. From cancer, to diabetes, to digestive system diseases, to high blood pressure, to skin conditions in cascades of suffering. Heartbreakingly, these conditions commonly overlap with mental illnesses or disorders. It’s increasingly common for people to be diagnosed with multiple mental conditions, such as having anxiety and depression, or anxiety and schizophrenia.

Calls for equity tend to revolve around medical treatment, even as absurdities and injustices accrue.

Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities. Doctors are diagnosing multimorbidity at younger and younger ages.

Treatment regimens for people with multiple conditions necessarily entail a polypharmacy approach – the prescribing of multiple medications. One condition may require multiple medications. Thus, with multimorbidity comes increased risk of adverse outcomes and polyiatrogenesis – ‘medical harm caused by medical treatments on multiple fronts simultaneously and in conjunction with one another.’

Side effects, whether short-term or patients’ concerns about long-term harm, are the main reason for non-adherence to prescribed medications.

So ‘equity’ which only implies drug treatment doesn’t involve equity at all.

Poor diets may be foundational to the Western world’s health crisis. But are governments considering this?

The antinomies are piling up.

We are amid a global epidemic of metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance, obesity, elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and elevated blood pressure haunt the people queuing up to see doctors.

Research, from individual cases to clinical trials, consistently show that diets containing high levels of ultra-processed foods and carbohydrates amplify inflammation, oxidative stress, and insulin resistance. What researchers and scientists are also identifying, at the cellular level, in clinical and medical practice, and at the global level – is that insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from poor diets not only drive metabolic illness, but mental illnesses, compounding suffering.

There is also ample evidence that the metabolic and mental health epidemic that is driving years lost due to disease, reducing productivity, and creating mayhem in personal lives – may be preventable and reversible.

Doctors generally recognise that poor diets are a problem. Ultra-processed foods are strongly associated with adult and childhood ill health. Ultra-processed foods are

‘formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, typically created by series of industrial techniques and processes (hence ‘ultra-processed’).’

In the USA young people under age 19 consume on average 67% of their diet, while adults consume around 60% of their diet in ultra-processed food. Ultra-processed food contributes 60% of UK children’s calories; 42% of Australian children’s calories and over half the dietary calories for children and adolescents in Canada. In New Zealand in 2009-2010, ultra-processed foods contributed to the 45% (12 months), 42% (24 months), and 51% (60 months) of energy intake to the diets of children.

All too frequently, doctors are diagnosing both metabolic and mental illnesses.

What may be predictable is that a person is likely to develop insulin resistance, inflammation, oxidative stress, and nutrient deficiencies from chronic exposure to ultra-processed food. How this will manifest in a disease or syndrome condition is reflective of a human equivalent of quantum entanglement.

Cascades, feedback loops, and other interdependencies often leave doctors and patients bouncing from one condition to another, and managing medicine side effects and drug-drug relationships as they go.

In New Zealand it is more common to have multiple conditions than a single condition. The costs of having two NCDs simultaneously is typically superadditive and ‘more so for younger adults.’

This information is outside the ‘work programme’ of the top echelons in the Ministry of Health:

Official Information Act (OIA) requests confirm that the Ministries’ Directors General who are responsible for setting policy and long-term strategy aren’t considering these issues. The problem of multimorbidity and the overlapping, entangled relationship with ultra-processed food is outside of the scope of the work programme of the top directorates in our health agency.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health’s top deputy directors general might be earning a quarter of a million dollars each, but they are ignorant of the relationship of dietary nutrition and mental health. Nor are they seemingly aware of the extent of multimorbidity and the overlap between metabolic and mental illnesses.

Neither the Public Health Agency Deputy Director-General – Dr Andrew Old, nor the Deputy Director-General Evidence, Research and Innovation, Dean Rutherford, nor the Deputy Director-General of Strategy Policy and Legislation, Maree Roberts, nor the Clinical, Community and Mental Health Deputy Director-General Robyn Shearer have been briefed on these relationships.

If they’re not being briefed, policy won’t be developed to address dietary nutrition. Diet will be lower-order.

The OIA request revealed that New Zealand’s Ministry of Health ‘does not widely use the metabolic syndrome classification.’ When I asked ‘How do you classify, or what term do you use to classify the cluster of symptoms characterised by central obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and insulin resistance?’, they responded:

‘The conditions referred to are considered either on their own or as part of a broader cardiovascular disease risk calculation.’

This is interesting. What if governments should be calculating insulin resistance first, in order to then calculate a broader cardiovascular risk? What if insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress are appearing at younger and younger ages, and ultra-processed food is the major driver?

Pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes are driven by too much blood glucose. Type 1 diabetics can’t make insulin, while Type 2 diabetics can’t make enough to compensate for their dietary intake of carbohydrates. One of insulin’s (many) jobs is to tuck away that blood glucose into cells (as fat) but when there are too many dietary carbohydrates pumping up blood glucose, the body can’t keep up. New Zealand practitioners use the HbA1c blood test, which measures the average blood glucose level over the past 2-3 months. In New Zealand, doctors diagnose pre-diabetes if HbA1c levels are 41-49 nmol/mol, and diabetes at levels of 50 nmol/mol and above.

Type 2 diabetes management guidelines recommend that sugar intake should be reduced, while people should aim for consistent carbohydrates across the day. The New Zealand government does not recommend paleo or low-carbohydrate diets.

If you have diabetes you are twice as likely to have heart disease or a stroke, and at a younger age. Prediabetes, which apparently 20% of Kiwis have, is also high-risk due to, as the Ministry of Health states: ‘increased risk of macrovascular complications and early death.’

The question might become – should we be looking at insulin levels, to more sensitively gauge risk at an early stage?

Without more sensitive screens at younger ages these opportunities to repivot to avoid chronic disease are likely to be missed. Currently, Ministry of Health policies are unlikely to justify the funding of tests for insulin resistance by using three simple blood tests: fasting insulin, fasting lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides), and fasting glucose – to estimate where children, young people, and adults stand on the insulin resistance spectrum when other diagnoses pop up.

Yet insulin plays a powerful role in brain health.

Insulin supports neurotransmitter function and brain energy, directly impacting mood and behaviours. Insulin resistance might arrive before mental illness. Harvard-based psychiatrist Chris Palmer recounts in the book Brain Energy, a large 15,000-participant study of young people from age 0-24:

‘Children who had persistently high insulin levels (a sign of insulin resistance) beginning at age nine were five times more likely to be at risk for psychosis, meaning they were showing at least some worrisome signs, and they were three times for likely to already be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia by the time they turned twenty-four. This study clearly demonstrated that insulin resistance comes first, then psychosis.’

Psychiatrist Georgia Ede suggests that high blood glucose and high insulin levels act like a ‘deadly one-two punch’ for the brain, triggering waves of inflammation and oxidative stress. The blood-brain barrier becomes increasingly resistant to chronic high insulin levels. Even though the body might have higher blood insulin, the same may not be true for the brain. As Ede maintains, ‘cells deprived of adequate insulin ‘sputter and struggle to maintain normal operations.’

Looking at the relationship between brain health and high blood glucose and high insulin simply might not be on the programme for strategists looking at long-term planning.

Nor are Directors General in a position to assess the role of food addiction. Ultra-processed food has addictive qualities designed into the product formulations. Food addiction is increasingly recognised as pervasive and difficult to manage as any substance addiction.

But how many children and young people have insulin resistance and are showing markers for inflammation and oxidative stress – in the body and in the brain? To what extent do young people have both insulin resistance and depression resistance or ADHD or bipolar disorder?

This kind of thinking is completely outside the work programme. But insulin levels, inflammation, and oxidative stress may not only be driving chronic illness – but driving the global mental health tsunami.

Metabolic disorders are involved in complex pathways and feedback loops across body systems, and doctors learn this at medical school. Patterns and relationships between hormones, the brain, the gastrointestinal system, kidneys, and liver; as well as problems with joints and bone health, autoimmunity, nerves, and sensory conditions evolve from and revolve around metabolic health.

Nutrition and diet are downplayed in medical school. What doctors don’t learn so much – the cognitive dissonance that they must accept throughout their training – is that metabolic health is commonly (except for some instances) shaped by the quality of dietary nutrition. The aetiology of a given condition can be very different, while the evidence that common chronic and mental illnesses are accompanied by oxidative stress, inflammation, and insulin resistance are primarily driven by diet – is growing stronger and stronger.

But without recognising the overlapping relationships, policy to support healthy diets will remain limp.

What we witness are notions of equity that support pharmaceutical delivery – not health delivery.

What also inevitably happens is that ‘equity’ focuses on medical treatment. When the Ministry of Health prefers to atomise the different conditions or associate them with heart disease – they become single conditions to treat with single drugs. They’re lots of small problems, not one big problem, and insulin resistance is downplayed.

But just as insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress send cascading impacts across body systems, systemic ignorance sends cascading effects across government departments tasked with ‘improving, promoting, and protecting health.’

It’s an injustice. The literature solidly points to lower socio-economic status driving much poorer diets and increased exposures to ultra-processed food, but the treatments exclusively involve drugs and therapy.

Briefings to Incoming Ministers with the election of new Governments show how ignorance cascades across responsible authorities.

Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora’s November 2023 Briefing to the new government outlined the agency’s obligations. However, the ‘health’ targets are medical, and the agency’s focus is on infrastructure, staff, and servicing. The promotion of health, and health equity, which can only be addressed by addressing the determinants of health, is not addressed.

The Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand Joint Briefing to the Incoming Minister for Mental Health does not address the role of diet and nutrition as a driver of mental illness and disorder in New Zealand. The issue of multimorbidity, the related problem of commensurate metabolic illness, and diet as a driver is outside scope. When the Briefing states that it is important to address the ‘social, cultural, environmental and economic determinants of mental health,’ without any sound policy footing, real movement to address diet will not happen, or will only happen ad hoc.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, Te Hiringa Mahara’s November 2023 Briefing to Incoming Ministers that went to the Ministers for Health and Mental Health might use the term ‘well-being’ over 120 times – but was silent on the related and overlapping drivers of mental illness which include metabolic or multimorbidity, nutrition, or diet.

Five years earlier, He Ara Ora, New Zealand’s 2018 Mental Health and Addiction enquiry had recognised that tāngata whaiora, people seeking wellness, or service users, also tend to have multiple health conditions. The enquiry recommended that a whole of government approach to well-being, prevention, and social determinants was required. Vague nods were made to diet and nutrition, but this was not sufficiently emphasised as to be a priority.

He Ara Ora was followed by 2020 Long-term pathway to mental well-being viewed nutrition as being one of a range of factors. No policy framework strategically prioritised diet, nutrition, and healthy food. No governmental obligation or commitment was built into policy to improve access to healthy food or nutrition education.

Understanding the science, the relationships, and the drivers of the global epidemic, is ‘outside the work programmes’ of New Zealand’s Ministry of Health and outside the scope of all the related authorities. There is an extraordinary amount of data in the scientific literature, so many case studies, cohort studies, and clinical trials. Popular books are being written, however government agencies remain ignorant.

In the meantime, doctors must deal with the suffering in front of them without an adequate toolkit.

Doctors and pharmacists are faced with a Hobson’s choice of managing multiple chronic conditions and complex drug cocktails, in patients at younger and younger ages. Ultimately, they are treating a patient whom they recognise will only become sicker, cost the health system more, and suffer more.

Currently there is little support for New Zealand medical doctors (known as general practitioners, or GPs) in changing practices and recommendations to support non-pharmaceutical drug treatment approaches. Their medical education does not equip them to recognise the extent to which multiple co-existing conditions may be alleviated or reversed. Doctors are paid to prescribe, to inject, and to screen, not to ameliorate or reverse disease and lessen prescribing. The prescribing of nutrients is discouraged and as doctors do not have nutritional training, they hesitate to prescribe nutrients.

Many do not want to risk going outside treatment guidelines. Recent surges in protocols and guidelines for medical doctors reduce flexibility and narrow treatment choices for doctors. If they were to be reported to the Medical Council of New Zealand, they would risk losing their medical license. They would then be unable to practice.

Inevitably, without Ministry of Health leadership, medical doctors in New Zealand are unlikely to voluntarily prescribe non-drug modalities such as nutritional options to any meaningful extent, for fear of being reported.

Yet some doctors are proactive, such as Dr Glen Davies in Taupo, New Zealand. Some doctors are in a better ‘place’ to work to alleviate and reverse long-term conditions. They may be later in their career, with 10-20 years of research into metabolism, dietary nutrition, and patient care, and motivated to guide a patient through a personal care regime which might alleviate or reverse a patient’s suffering.

Barriers include resourcing. Doctors aren’t paid for reversing disease and taking patients off medications.

Doctors witness daily the hopelessness felt by their patients in dealing with chronic conditions in their short 15-minute consultations, and the vigilance required for dealing with adverse drug effects. Drug non-compliance is associated with adverse effects suffered by patients. Yet without wrap-around support changing treatments, even if it has potential to alleviate multiple conditions, to reduce symptoms, lower prescribing and therefore lessen side effects, is just too uncertain.

They saw what happened to disobedient doctors during Covid-19.

Given such context, what are we to do?

Have open public discussions about doctor-patient relationships and trust. Inform and overlay such conversations by drawing attention to the foundational Hippocratic Oath made by doctors, to first do no harm.

Questions can be asked. If patients were to understand that diet may be an underlying driver of multiple conditions, and a change in diet and improvement in micronutrient status might alleviate suffering – would patients be more likely to change?

Economically, if wrap-around services were provided in clinics to support dietary change, would less harm occur to patients from worsening conditions that accompany many diseases (such as Type 2 diabetes) and the ever-present problem of drug side-effects? Would education and wrap-around services in early childhood and youth delay or prevent the onset of multimorbid diagnoses?

Is it more ethical to give young people a choice of treatment? Could doctors prescribe dietary changes and multinutrients and support change with wrap-around support when children and young people are first diagnosed with a mental health condition – from the clinic, to school, to after school? If that doesn’t work, then prescribe pharmaceutical drugs.

Should children and young people be educated to appreciate the extent to which their consumption of ultra-processed food likely drives their metabolic and mental health conditions? Not just in a blithe ‘eat healthy’ fashion that patently avoids discussing addiction. Through deeper policy mechanisms, including cooking classes and nutritional biology by the implementation of nourishing, low-carbohydrate cooked school lunches.

With officials uninformed, it’s easy to see why funding for Green Prescriptions that would support dietary changes have sputtered out. It’s easy to understand why neither the Ministry of Health nor Pharmac have proactively sourced multi-nutrient treatments that improve resilience to stress and trauma for low-income young people. Why there’s no discussion on a lower side-effect risk for multinutrient treatments. Why are there no policies in the education curriculum diving into the relationship between ultra-processed food and mental and physical health? It’s not in the work programme.

There’s another surfacing dilemma.

Currently, if doctors tell their patients that there is very good evidence that their disease or syndrome could be reversed, and this information is not held as factual information by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health – do doctors risk being accused of spreading misinformation?

Government agencies have pivoted in the past 5 years to focus intensively on the problem of dis- and misinformation. New Zealand’s disinformation project states that

Disinformation is false or modified information knowingly and deliberately shared to cause harm or achieve a broader aim.
Misinformation is information that is false or misleading, though not created or shared with the direct intention of causing harm.
Unfortunately, as we see, there is no division inside the Ministry of Health that reviews the latest evidence in the scientific literature, to ensure that policy decisions correctly reflect the latest evidence.

There is no scientific agency outside the Ministry of Health that has flexibility and the capacity to undertake autonomous, long-term monitoring and research in nutrition, diet, and health. There is no independent, autonomous, public health research facility with sufficient long-term funding to translate dietary and nutritional evidence into policy, particularly if it contradicted current policy positions.

Despite excellent research being undertaken, it is highly controlled, ad hoc, and frequently short-term. Problematically, there is no resourcing for those scientists to meaningfully feedback that information to either the Ministry of Health or to Members of Parliament and government Ministers.

Dietary guidelines can become locked in, and contradictions can fail to be chewed over. Without the capacity to address errors, information can become outdated and misleading. Government agencies and elected members – from local councils all the way up to government Ministers, are dependent on being informed by the Ministry of Health, when it comes to government policy.

When it comes to complex health conditions, and alleviating and reversing metabolic or mental illness, based on different patient capacity – from socio-economic, to cultural, to social, and taking into account capacity for change, what is sound, evidence-based information and what is misinformation?

In the impasse, who can we trust?

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

J.R. Bruning is a consultant sociologist (B.Bus.Agribusiness; MA Sociology) based in New Zealand. Her work explores governance cultures, policy and the production of scientific and technical knowledge. Her Master’s thesis explored the ways science policy creates barriers to funding, stymying scientists’ efforts to explore upstream drivers of harm. Bruning is a trustee of Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR.org.nz). Papers and writing can be found at TalkingRisk.NZ and at JRBruning.Substack.com and at Talking Risk on Rumble.

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

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-silent-shame-of-health-institutions/

What a War Requires
Yes, It's About Resources

Dr Naomi Wolf

Dear Readers, Dear Extended Family

I am grateful that this Substack — which, if you read the comment section, is also one that is a home or meeting-place for many of the most interesting and idealistic people on the Internet — has 83,500 plus subscribers. That is almost the subscriber base of The New Republic. It had 737,000 plus views in the last 30 days — 249,000 plus more than the month prior. That is more views than the number of the audience of CNN.

Every reader is equally precious to me. But you all count on me — you tell me this — to do all I can to affect national and even global outcomes. From the messages I receive, leaders from all walks of life do indeed read this Substack — and so it is having some impact on the public discussion and perhaps even on public outcomes.

But this Substack has only a few more than 4000 paid subscribers.

Why does this matter, more than to my personal finances?

As you know, I believe — I think at this point it is incontrovertible - that a war is being waged upon us, one that will soon become a “hot war.” My husband Brian O’Shea, who cohosts the podcast “Unrestricted Invasion” with JJ Carrell, is documenting the positioning of military-age or gangland-age illegal-immigrant young men, in barracks-type situations in strategic points around the country. This week he went undercover to a budget hotel in Massachusetts, where security and the hotel staff sought to prevent him from filming what was happening inside in relation to scores of illegal incomers. He was subsequently followed by a maroon sedan that pulled up right as he was leaving the hotel; the drivers proceeded to wait til he was his car, and then followed him across three different exits til he shook them off.

Brian was also confronted by security, and then followed, earlier this year, when he went to document a facility in Brooklyn, Floyd Bennett Field, an area with over 1000 flat acres of land, where illegal immigrants are being housed in military-style facilities. Illegal immigrants are being housed at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, a sensitive strategic location for a possible attack on America, if there ever was one. Illegal immigrants, disproportionately fighting-age men, are being housed for months in hotels in midtown Manhattan, all basic expenses paid and with cleaning services.

As they say, wake up and smell the coffee. This is not a domestic policy issue any longer — ie, what are these illegal immigrants getting that your legal immigrant parents or grandparents, your enslaved great-grandparents, did not get? To anyone who has ever been in a combat area, this set of situations depicts what is obviously a military or terrorist set of staging areas. Or, to be conservative, this set of landscapes has all the hallmarks of depicting military or terrorist staging areas.

Meanwhile, the whips are being brought down on the shoulders of the last standing dissidents in the United States and globally. A Canadian court ordered psychologist and commentator Jordan Peterson to be forced into a re-education program. Literal Marxism. Ethical physician Dr Kulvinder Kaur Gill, who was critical of the mRNA injections, has been hit with a $1 million dollar fine after her libel suit in defense of her reputation, failed. She was forced to mobilize an online donations campaign in order not to lose her house. Under the guise of a credit review, as he points out, researcher and inventor of the mRNA vaccine Dr Robert Malone has been hit with a letter from payment processor Stripe, demanding his bank records. He was told that it will cost $100,000 to fight it. Other dissident voices on Substack, including conservative voices, are being hit in similar ways.

Governor Hochul declared that National Guard would take on some civil policing roles in New York State, and she is appealing the court decision that prevented her from opening quarantine camps that could detain New Yorkers without trial or even without infection, indefinitely. If she prevails, and if the WHO treaty that declares WHO “pandemic” requirements superior to national or state law prevails in May, the National Guard (or the WHO’s own mercenaries) could show up at any New Yorker’s house, and this is the state where I live; and compel him or her to be transported to a detention facility, and that would be that.

Why am I presenting all of this to you? Because things are getting very scary and we need your help.

This Substack does not just provide personal income for me. It is the source of funds to meet costs for the independent news and opinion site DailyClout.io and for BillCam when our demands exceed our resources.

Gloria Steinem says to look at your checkbook to see if you are walking your talk morally, and my checkbook speaks volumes. I had hoped by the age of 61, after decades of training for my profession, honing my craft as a writer, and fighting for humanity and for humane values, that I would be able to look at my checkbook records and see mostly expenses for travel, with other records perhaps of dinners in some lovely restaurants, an occasional nice dress or two, and funds devoted to caring for elderly relatives.

But my primary expenditure is not for any of that. Most of the money I earn goes to scrambling to meet the extraordinary and unpredictable costs that running a war from the trenches of DailyClout can involve, and many of these high costs arise unpredictably. Remember, too, that those who use their own resources to oppose and harass us and me personally, include one of the biggest companies in the world, not to mention the United States government, including its justice arm — and state governments. One of our legal letters is against the Justice Department. One of our lawsuits is against the Biden administration, including the CDC.

Though we are doing impressively well as a startup helmed by three people, and punching far above our weight, we have, as you know, bills that can top six figures for the various lawsuits we are waging on your behalf.

To keep a dissident news startup — one that also crafts draft bills and passes them, as nonprofits cannot do, which activity involves traversing a minefield of FEC restrictions — so scrupulously kosher that it can’t be brought down by government tripwires, is itself a legal bill for tens of thousands.

Though we are a lean machine, our technical costs are substantial. Our API, the feed from which our legislative technology that lets you see, share and act on any bill, costs thousands of dollars per quarter. Our developers have created tools — the latest being the extraordinary game changer LegiSector, at https://www.legisector.com (due to suppression, you need to cut and paste the whole url in order to see it) — that sweep away all obfuscation from state and federal legislation, and allow you to pass, share or stop bills from the ease of your own desktop, or even from your handheld. This is also a tens of thousands of dollars a year commitment. As we push to launch this revolutionary tool, Google appears to be suppressing it so thoroughly that it is difficult for us to let the world know that everything has changed now, as interviewers who have covered this tool are telling me, when it comes to legislative transparency. We need a marketing campaign in the tens of thousands to break through this censorship by another one of the biggest companies on Earth.

It is my sleepless nights, no one else’s, that are involved in trying to figure out how.

Then there are the fights to protect the reputation that allows me to lead this company and its mission and tools, forward; I was forced to spend tens of thousands on a lawsuit against Twitter for suppressing my (accurate, important) warnings about harms to women from the mRNA injections. My co-plaintiff? President Donald Trump. (Sadly I do not have the resources for legal representation, that my co-plaintiff does.)

The point of all of the above is that staying credible, meaning fighting the constant government- and nonprofit-sponsored attacks on the credibility of my and my company’s reputations; staying on the right side of all government regulations, so that no harm can come to me or the company; fighting in the courts so that a precedent can be set to protect all Americans from the government leaning on private companies to destroy them — fighting Google’s algorithms with creative workarounds; fighting laws that constantly seek to imprison or bankrupt us — all of this, at times, as you know because I have shared it with you before, can take a terrible financial and psychic/energetic toll.

It is tempting to just walk away and, to paraphrase Voltaire, “cultivate my own garden.”

But to stay in these trenches and achieve it at all, all that so many of you tell me you are counting on, requires a robust and reliable stream of resources if we are to stay alive in this culture of lies and erasures.

Think about the lives we have saved. Maybe yours or your loved ones. Think about whether anyone else’s technology lets you see and act on any state or Federal bill, or protect your investments; with both BillCam and LegiSector offering free searches.

Think about whether anyone else is soliciting citizens’ input on draft model bills, hiring lawyers, drafting and passing them, in the way we do. Remember, nonprofits can give you a tax deduction, but they cannot lobby. They must stop short of actual political action with legislation and legislators. The fact that we aren’t a nonprofit allows us to lobby and draft and pass bills — a superpower — but makes it much harder for us to raise donation funding.

Think about this Substack, for that matter. Did my writing help to balance and reassure you in this nightmarish struggle? Did it inform you of important issues that could affect your family? Did you find community and spiritual strength here?

What would your world be like without my voice, or without DailyClout’s voice and tools and advocacy?

There would be a lot more darkness, and you and your family’s position and knowledge base would be weakened. I do not think that is too strong a statement.

If you want these voices and institutions to keep fighting this war, mine but also others’, there is no alternative but to support them with, dare I say it, your actual money.

I know that many people cannot afford $8 a month. But many of the 83,000 subscribers who are now free, could afford to upgrade to the status of paid subscriber. And the difference between 4 per cent of my readers being paid subscribers and eight per cent being paid subscribers, is the difference between a precarious and easily extinguished position on the battlefield, versus a more secure one that can continue winning victory after victory for you.

And I will tell you, speaking both as a writer and on behalf of a dissident company, without your financial support it is not only materially unsustainable to fight on, but emotionally unsustainable, as the battles grow more serious and more costly. Without your help, over time, the strain of trying to figure out, during many months, how to pay our lawyers, as well as our API invoices and our developers and our travel to statehouses to lobby for freedom for you, will simply become too great.

We need your help in spiritual and emotional as well as in material ways.

You should support us not as a charity but because our our approach works. Because of our draft Five Freedoms bill, which passed in 33 states in 2021, you do not have vaccine passports in the US, and kids went back to school earlier than they might have done. Our Election Integrity bill, which you all shared, has cosponsors in Wyoming, was introduced and defeated in Maine (but a successor has been tapped to re-introduce it in the Fall), and three other states, Michigan, Alabama and North Dakota, have citizens and legislators acting to push it forward. The Pfizer Papers comes out in May. The manuscript, which Amy Kelly and I edited, is 500 pages long. We edited 96 reports from the WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Team, who in turn had reviewed 450,000 pages of internal Pfizer documents. They revealed the greatest crime against humanity in history in exhaustive detail, affecting people and governments worldwide. Their work is cited or used without citation by dozens of other freedom advocates, and legislators. And booster uptake is now down to 4%; Pfizer’s profits ground to pre-2016 levels.

We saved, together, with your help, what may turn out to be millions of lives and countless unborn babies.

But to continue, I need your help; seriously; now just now but into the future.

If you can afford, it, and if the above is meaningful to you at all, do please upgrade your subscription from free to paid.

The war is here, and you need warriors fighting for you, who are not barefoot in the snow, but who have warm clothing, and weapons, and ammunition.

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/what-a-war-requires

Israel’s Trojan Horse
The “temporary pier” being built on the Mediterranean coast of Gaza is not there to alleviate the famine, but to herd Palestinians onto ships and into permanent exile.

Chris Hedges

Israel’s Trojan Horse - by Mr. Fish

Piers allow things to come in. They allow things to go out. And Israel, which has no intention of halting its murderous siege of Gaza, including its policy of enforced starvation, appears to have found a solution to its problem of where to expel the 2.3 million Palestinians.

If the Arab world will not take them, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken proposed during his first round of visits after Oct. 7, the Palestinians will be cast adrift on ships. It worked in Beirut in 1982 when some eight and a half thousand Palestine Liberation Organization members were sent by sea to Tunisia and another two and a half thousand ended up in other Arab states. Israel expects that the same forced deportation by sea will work in Gaza.

Israel, for this reason, supports the “temporary pier” the Biden administration is building, to ostensibly deliver food and aid to Gaza – food and aid whose “distribution” will be overseen by the Israeli military.

“You need drivers that don’t exist, trucks that don’t exist feeding into a distribution system that doesn’t exist,” Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior aid official in the Biden administration, and now president of the Refugees International aid advocacy group told The Guardian.

This “maritime corridor” is Israel’s Trojan Horse, a subterfuge to expel Palestinians. The small shipments of seaborne aid, like the food packets that have been air dropped, will not alleviate the looming famine. They are not meant to.

Five Palestinians were killed and several others injured when a parachute carrying aid failed and crashed onto a crowd of people near Gaza City’s Shati refugee camp.

“Dropping aid in this way is flashy propaganda rather than a humanitarian service,” the media office of the local government in Gaza said. “We previously warned it poses a threat to the lives of citizens in the Gaza Strip, and this is what happened today when the parcels fell on the citizens’ heads.”

If the U.S. or Israel were serious about alleviating the humanitarian crisis, the thousands of trucks with food and aid currently at the southern border of Gaza would be allowed to enter any of its multiple crossings. They are not. The “temporary pier,” like the air drops, is ghoulish theater, a way to mask Washington’s complicity in the genocide.

Israeli media reported the building of the pier was due to pressure by the United Arab Emirates, which threatened Israel with ending a land corridor trade route it administers in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Jordan, to bypass Yemen’s naval blockade.

The Jerusalem Post reported it was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who proposed the construction of the “temporary pier” to the Biden administration.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who has called Palestinians “human animals” and advocated a total siege of Gaza, including cutting off electricity, food, water and fuel, lauded the plan, saying “it is designed to bring aid directly to the residents and thus continue the collapse of Hamas’s rule in Gaza.”

“Why would Israel, the engineer of the Gaza famine, endorse the idea of establishing a maritime corridor for aid to address a crisis it initiated and is now worsening?” writes Tamara Nassar in an article titled “What’s the Real Purpose of Biden’s Gaza Port?” in The Electronic Intifada. “This might appear paradoxical if one were to assume that the primary aim of the maritime corridor is to deliver aid.”

When Israel offers a gift to the Palestinians you can be sure it is a poison apple. That Israel got the Biden administration to construct the pier is one more example of the inverted relationship between Washington and Jerusalem, where the Israel lobby has bought off elected officials in the two ruling parties.

Oxfam in a March 15 report accuses Israel of actively hindering aid operations in Gaza in defiance of the orders by the International Court of Justice. It notes that 1.7 million Palestinians, some 75 percent of the Gaza population, are facing famine and two-thirds of the hospitals and over 80 percent of all health clinics in Gaza are no longer operable. The majority of people, the report reads, “have no access to clean drinking water” and “sanitation services are not functioning.”

The report reads:

The conditions we have observed in Gaza are beyond catastrophic, and we have not only seen failure by Israeli authorities to meet their responsibility to facilitate and support international aid efforts, but in fact seen active steps being taken to hinder and undermine such aid efforts. Israel’s control of Gaza continues to be characterized by deliberate restrictive actions that have led to a severe and systemic dysfunctionality in the delivery of aid. Humanitarian organizations operational in Gaza are reporting a worsening situation since the International Court of Justice imposed provisional measures in light of the plausible risk of genocide, with intensified Israeli barriers, restrictions and attacks against humanitarian personnel. Israel has maintained a ‘convenient illusion of a response’ in Gaza to serve its claim that it is allowing aid in and conducting the war in line with international laws.

Oxfam says Israel employs “a dysfunctional and undersized inspection system that keeps aid snarled up, subjected to onerous, repetitive and unpredictable bureaucratic procedures that are contributing to trucks being stranded in giant queues for 20 days on average.” Israel, Oxfam explains, rejects “items of aid as having ‘dual (military) use,’ banning vital fuel and generators entirely along with other items essential for a meaningful humanitarian response such as protective gear and communications kit.” Rejected aid, “must go through a complex ‘pre-approval’ system or end up being held in limbo at the Al Arish warehouse in Egypt.” Israel has also “cracked down on humanitarian missions, largely sealing off northern Gaza, and restricting international humanitarian workers’ access not only into Gaza, but Israel and the West Bank including East Jerusalem too.”

Israel has allowed 15,413 trucks into Gaza during the past 157 days of war. Oxfam estimates that the population of Gaza needs five times that number. Israel allowed 2,874 trucks in February, a 44 percent reduction from the previous month. Before Oct. 7, 500 aid trucks entered Gaza daily.

Israeli soldiers have also killed scores of Palestinians attempting to receive aid from trucks in more than two dozen incidents. These attacks include the killing of at least 21 Palestinians, and the wounding of 150, on March 14, when Israeli forces fired on thousands of people in Gaza City. The same area had been targeted by Israeli soldiers hours earlier.

“Israel’s assault has caught Gaza’s own aid workers and international agencies’ partners inside a ‘practically uninhabitable’ environment of mass displacement and deprivation, where 75 percent of solid waste is now being dumped in random sites, 97 percent of groundwater made unfit for human use, and the Israeli state using starvation as a weapon of war,” Oxfam says.

There is no place in Gaza, Oxfam notes, that is safe “amid the forcible and often multiple displacements of almost the entire population, which makes the principled distribution of aid unviable, including agencies' ability to help repair vital public services at scale.”

Oxfam blasts Israel for its “disproportionate” and “indiscriminate” attacks on “civilian and humanitarian assets” as well as “solar, water, power and sanitation plants, UN premises, hospitals, roads, and aid convoys and warehouses, even when these assets are supposedly ‘deconflicted’ after their coordinates have been shared for protection.”

The health ministry in Gaza said Monday that at least 31,726 people have been killed since the Israeli assault began five months ago. The death toll includes at least 81 deaths in the previous 24 hours, a ministry statement said, adding that 73,792 people have been wounded in Gaza since Oct. 7. Thousands more are missing, many buried under the rubble.

None of these Israeli tactics will be altered with the building of a “temporary pier.” In fact, given the pending ground assault on Rafah, where 1.2 million displaced Palestinians are crowded in tent cities or camped out in the open air, Israel’s tactics will only get worse.

Israel, by design, is creating a humanitarian crisis of such catastrophic proportions, with thousands of Palestinians killed by bombs, shells, missiles, bullets, starvation and infectious diseases, that the only option will be death or deportation. The pier is where the last act in this gruesome genocidal campaign will be played out as Palestinians are herded by Israeli soldiers onto ships.

How appropriate that the Biden administration, without whom this genocide could not be carried out, will facilitate it.

Share


https://open.substack.com/pub/chrishedges/p/israels-trojan-horse

How To Perform Solat Terawih - Step by Step Guide
Terawih is a beautiful and rewarding prayer that is only offered during the month of Ramadan. By learning how to pray Terawih, you strengthen your connection with Allah and contribute to the spirit of unity and devotion in the community. Don't miss this opportunity to gain blessings and make the most of Ramadan.

Muslim.Sg is a one-stop online media platform that aims to inspire and empower millennial Muslims with powerful and engaging Islamic religious content.

2024-03-08 • 14 min read

How To Pray Terawih - Step-by-Step Guide

How to Pray Taraweeh step by step for Muslim

Praise be to Allah.

One of the acts of worship that we all look forward to during Ramadan is the terawih prayer. The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. said:

مَنْ قَامَ رَمَضَانَ إِيْمَانًا وَاحْتِسَابًا غُفِرَ لَهُ مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبِهِ

“Whoever stands (in worship) in Ramadan out of faith and hope for the rewards (from Allah), his past sins will be forgiven.”

(Sahih Al-Bukhārī & Muslim)

The terawih prayer will begin right after the congregational Isyak prayer. Dedicated spaces for Muslimah will also be made available at most mosques.

Read: 5 Things You Need to Know About Terawih Prayer.

Want to refresh your memory on how to perform the terawih prayer? Here is a step-by-step guide that you can follow!

1. Establish the intention to perform terawih

how to taraweeh at home

Recite the intention for terawih prayer:

أُصَلِّي سُنَّةَ التَراوِيحِ رَكعَتَينِ لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى

Usolli sunnata-taraawiihi rak'ataini lillah ta'ala

I intend to pray the Sunnah prayer of terawih two raka'at for Allah ta'ala

If you pray in a congregation, the intentions for terawih prayer are as follows. The one who is leading the prayer as an Imam would recite:

أُصَلِّي سُنَّةَ التَراوِيحِ رَكعَتَينِ إِمَامًا لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى

Usolli sunnata-taraawiihi rak'ataini imaamam lillah ta'ala

I intend to pray the Sunnah prayer of terawih as the Imam two raka'at for Allah ta'ala

The Makmum (follower) will recite this intention:

أُصَلِّي سُنَّةَ التَراوِيحِ رَكعَتَينِ مَأمُومًا لِلَّهِ تَعَالَى

Usolli sunnata-taraawiihi rak'ataini makmumam lillah ta'ala

I intend to pray the Sunnah prayer of terawih as the Makmum two raka'at for Allah ta'ala

The following illustrations will guide us in praying Jema’ah (in a congregation) at home:

Guidelines for congregational prayer for Muslims at home

Read: Guidelines for praying in a congregation.

2. Say the Takbiratul Ihram

how to taraweeh at home

Takbiratul Ihram is the act of entering the state of prayer. It is done by raising your hands such that your thumbs are on the same level as your earlobes and your palms are on the same level as your shoulder.

Say ‘Allahu Akbar’ while keeping your intention in mind.

3. Place your right hand over your left hand and recite Dua Iftitah

Stand in prayer (for the able men and women). Upon giving the Takbir, lower your hands gently over your chest and put your right hand over your left.

Recite the Dua Iftitah (opening dua) quietly only for the first raka’at:

اللهُ أَكْبَرُ كَبِيرًا وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ كَثِيْرًا وَسُبْحَانَ اللهِ بُكْرَةً وَأَصِيْلًا .وَجَّهْتُ وَجْهِيَ لِلَّذِيْ فَطَرَالسَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ حَنِيْفًا مُسْلِمًا وَمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِيْنَ . إِنَّ صَلَاتِيْ وَنُسُكِيْ وَمَحْيَايَ وَمَمَاتِيْ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَالَمِيْنَ لاَ شَرِيْكَ لَهُ وَبِذَلِكَ أُمِرْتُ وَأنَا مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِيْنَ

______

Allāhu Akbar Kabirā,
Walhamdulillāhi Kathīrā
Wa Subhānallāhi Bukratan Wa aṣīlā
Wajjahtu Wajhiya lillazi Fatras-Samāwāti wal-Ardh
Hanīfan Musliman Wa-mā ana minal-musyrikīn
Inna ṣalātī, wa-nusukī wa-mahyaya, wamamātī Lillāhi Rabbil-'ālamīn
Lā syarīka laHu wa bizālika umirtu wa ana minal muslimīn

______

Allah the Almighty, the Greatest
All praises be upon Him
Allah The Most Exalted, day and night
I stand before The One Who created the skies and the lands
I sincerely submit to Allah and I am certainly not among those who associate Allah with other beings
Indeed my Solat, my good deeds, my life and my death are all for Allah The Lord of all the worlds
He has no partner nor parallel whatsoever, and I have been ordered as such, and I am from those who embrace Islam (submits).

how to taraweeh at home

4. Recite Surah Al-Fatihah and another Surah from the Quran

Once the Dua Iftitah is read, recite the Ta’awwudz (seeking Allah's refuge from the devil) quietly:

أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

A'uzu biLlāhi minash-shaytānir-rajim

I seek refuge with Allah from the accursed Shaytan

And then read Surah Al-Fatihah:

بِسمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ. الحَمدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ العالَمينَ
الرَّحمٰنِ الرَّحيمِ. مالِكِ يَومِ الدّينِ
إِيّاكَ نَعبُدُ وَإِيّاكَ نَستَعينُ
اهدِنَا الصِّراطَ المُستَقيمَ
صِراطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِم غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِم وَلَا الضَّالِّينَ

______

Bismillāhir-Raḥmānir-Raḥīm
Alḥamdulillāhi Rabbil-ʿālamīn
Ar-Raḥmānir-Raḥīm
Māliki yawmid-dīn
iyyāKa naʿbudu wa-iyyāKa nastaʿīn
Ihdināṣ-ṣirāṭal-mustaqīm
ṣirāṭallazīna anʿamta ʿalayhim ghayril-maghḍūbi ʿalayhim wa-lāḍḍāllīn

______

In the name of God The Most Compassionate and Merciful
Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the worlds
The Compassionate, The Merciful. Ruler on the Day of Reckoning
You alone do we worship, and You alone do we ask for help
Guide us along the straight path
the path of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace
not those You are displeased with, or those who are astray
Amiin

Upon completing the recitation of Surah Al-Fatihah, you may read any memorised surah of your preference. For the second raka’at, it is encouraged to choose a verse that does not precede the first in the order of the Quran.

For example, you can read Surah Al-’Asr in the first raka’at and read Surah Al-Ikhlas in the second.

Here is a list of recommended surahs from page 34 of Contemporary Irsyad Series - Ramadan edition (English) by Office of the Mufti:

Recommended surah in terawih prayer

While there is no harm in reading the same surah again for the next raka’at, this Ramadan could be an opportunity to learn other beautiful surah and further increase our appreciation of the Quran, especially since there are so many benefits of reciting the Quran.

You may also opt to read from the Mushaf (physical copy of Quran), maybe a pocket Quran or Quran app.

5. Bend forward for Ruku’

Recite the Takbiratul Intiqal (Allahu Akbar) during the transition from standing to bending for Ruku’, while raising your hands just as previously explained in Takbiratul Ihram. Lower your hands gently to your knees as you move towards the Ruku’ position.

Say three times,

سُبحَانَ رَبِّيَ العَظِيمِ وَبِحَمْدِهِ

Subhanna Rabbiyal-’azim wa bihamdiHi

Glory be to Allah, the Mighty, and praise be to He

how to pray taraweeh

6. Stand in the upright position - I’tidal

After completing your Ruku’, return to the standing position while raising your hands just as in the Takbiratul Ihram position and recite during the transition:

سَمِعَ اللهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ

Sami’ Allahu liman hamida

Allah has heard the one who praised Him

Lower your hands gently. When you are in the complete upright position, recite:

رَبَّنَا وَلَكَ الْحَمْدُ

Rabbana walaKal-hamd

O Our Lord, to You are all the praises

7. Perform the first sujud

Go into prostration while saying the Takbiratul Intiqal (Allahu Akbar) without raising your hands. Let your knees touch the ground first, followed by your palms and then your forehead. While in the first Sujud, say three times:

سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيَ الأَعْلَى وَبِحَمْدِهِ

Subhānna Rabbiyal-a’lā wa bihamdih

Glory be to my Lord The Most High, and praise be to He

8. Sit on your knees

In between the two Sujud, rise from prostration to a sitting position on your knees while saying the Takbiratul Intiqal without raising your hands. In the sitting position, say :

رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِيْ وَارْحَمْنِيْ وَاجْبُرْنِيْ وَارْفَعْنِيْ وَارْزُقْنِيْ وَاهْدِنِيْ وَعَافِنِيْ وَاعْفُ عَنِّيْ

Rabbighfirlī warhamnī wajburnī warfa’nī warzuqnī wahdinī wa‘afinī wa’fu ‘annī

O Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, cover for me my shortcomings, elevate my rank, provide for me, guide me, grant me well-being, and pardon me

9. Perform the second sujud

Afterwards, return to the prostration position to complete the second Sujud and repeat the recitation as mentioned previously. Upon fulfilling the mentioned integrals (arkān), we have completed the first raka’at.

10. Return to the standing position

Return to the standing position as you recite the Takbiratul Intiqal and repeat the steps from 4 to 9 again to fulfil the second raka’at.

11. Recite the final Tasyahhud

At the end of your 2nd raka'at, sit on your left leg while the left foot is placed and briefly exposed below your right leg. Keep your right foot upright just as in the picture shown above. Complete the prayer by reciting the final Tasyahhud;

اَلتَّحِيَّاتُ الْمُبَارَكَاتُ الصَّلَوَاتُ الطَّيِّبَاتُ ِللهِ. اَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكَ أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ. اَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْنَا وَعَلَى عِبَادِ اللهِ الصَّالِحِيْنَ

“At-tahiyyātul mubārakatuṣ-ṣalawātuth ṭayyibātu lillāh. Assalāmu ‘alaika ayyuhan-nabiyyu wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuhu. Assalāmu ‘alainā wa ‘alā ‘ibādillāhiṣ-ṣālihīn.

Raise your right index finger. And say:

أَشْهدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللهُ وَأَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُوْلُ اللهِ

Asyhadu an lā ilāha illallāh, wa asyhadu anna Muhammadar Rasuulullāh

Continue with the selawat:

اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكْ علَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ

Allahumma ṣalli 'ala Muhammadin, wa 'alā āli Muhammad, kamā ṣallaita 'ala 'āli Ibrāhīma, innaka Hamīdun Majīd. Allahumma bārik 'alā Muhammadin, wa 'alā āli Muhammad, kamā bārakta 'alā āli Ibrāhīma, innaka Hamīdun Majīd

O Allah, bestow your blessings upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as you bestowed your blessings upon the family of Ibrahim. Indeed You are Praised and Glorious. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You have blessed the family of Ibrahim. Indeed You are Praised and Glorious

12. End with the salam

Turn your head to both of your sides, starting from the right, such that your cheek can be seen by anyone behind you, and say

السَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُم وَرَحْمَةُ الله

Assalamu alaykum wa-rahmatullah

Peace and Allah’s mercy be upon you

By giving the salam, we have therefore completed one set of terawih prayer.

Each terawih prayer consists of two raka’at. If you intend to pray 8 raka'at of terawih prayer, do 4 sets of 2 raka'at. If you intend to do 20 raka'at of terawih prayer, do 10 sets of terawih Prayer.

Read: How to Pray in Islam: Step-By-Step Guide to Solat for Beginners

13. Do the witr prayer

how to taraweeh at home

After completing the terawih prayer, it is encouraged to end the night with the witr prayer. Witr can also be performed after completing Qiyam al-Layl which refers to other supererogatory (sunnah) prayers that are done towards the end of the night or after waking up from sleep. This was mentioned by the Prophet s.a.w.:

“Make the last of your prayers at night the witr prayer."

(Sahih Bukhari)

Witr prayer should be performed in an odd number of raka'at and is usually done in 3 raka'at. This is done by performing two raka’at of the same steps mentioned with the salam, and then followed by one raka’at with the salam to complete the three raka’at of the Witr prayer. The maximum number of raka’at for the sunnah witr prayer is 11 raka’at.

14. Read recommended zikir and supplications

how to taraweeh at home

There are supplications that are often read in mosques after every terawih prayer. However, if you do not read them, it does not invalidate the prayer. Nonetheless, reciting them is definitely encouraged. (Read Page 36 of Contemporary Irsyad Series - Ramadan edition)

What is important for us is to make full use of this blessed time and position to sincerely supplicate to Allah s.w.t. and express our love, hope, fear, regret, heart and soul to The One Who Hears, is Kind and Most Merciful to His servants.

However, it is understandable that we sometimes find it hard to think of what to dua. For the supplications that are often read after terawih and witr prayers, you may refer to this list of beautiful duas for Ramadan.

May this step-by-step guide on how to perform the terawih prayer benefit us. May this Ramadan be a more meaningful one, and may Allah s.w.t. accept our humble deeds. Ameen.

Allah knows best.

There are many benefits of praying in a congregation. To get your terawih questions answered, Ustaz Irwan Hadi, together with Ms Marina Yusoff and her family, share how you can do your terawih prayer at home:



https://muslim.sg/articles/how-to-perform-solat-terawih-step-by-step-guide

https://telegra.ph/How-To-Perform-Solat-Terawih---Step-by-Step-Guide-03-11

‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ Day 143: Gaza famine is ‘man-made,’ says UNRWA Chief
UNRWA says that the famine in northern Gaza can be avoided if more food convoys are allowed in, but Israel continues to hold up over 2000 aid trucks. Meanwhile, Netanyahu reaffirms plans to invade Rafah, where 1.5 million Gazans have sought shelter.

Leila WarahFebruary 26, 2024
Palestinians stand in line for food aid, Deir al-Balah, February 2, 2024. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images)
Palestinians stand in line for food aid, Deir al-Balah, February 2, 2024. (Photo: Omar Ashtawy/APA Images)
Casualties

29,782+ killed* and at least 70,043 wounded in the Gaza Strip.
380+ Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem
Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147.
579 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 3,221 injured.**
*This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health on Telegram channel on February 24. Some rights groups put the death toll number at more than 38,000 when accounting for those presumed dead.

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

Key Developments

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stresses that the assault on the crowded city of Rafah will take place but may be delayed by captive exchange deal.
UNRWA: Famine in northern Gaza can be avoided if more food convoys are allowed in.
Orthodox Jews take over Muslim shrine, vandalize graves in West Jerusalem.
WFP: Enough food is waiting across Gaza’s borders to feed entire population.
Aerial photos show over 2,000 aid trucks on Egyptian side of Rafah crossing.
Renowned Gazan artist Fat’hi Ghabin dies after being denied treatment abroad.
Gaza Ministry of Health: Dialysis and intensive care patients facing death in northern Gaza as hospitals run out of fuel.
18-year-old Israeli woman jailed for refusing to serve in army over war on Gaza.
UNRWA: Report of two-month-old baby dying in Gaza from hunger “horrific.”
Israeli defense minister vows to continue targeting Hezbollah regardless of the situation in Gaza.
Israeli forces partially withdraw from Nasser Hospital on Sunday, reports Al Jazeera.
Israeli military erects watchtower with surveillance cameras at Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Israeli forces kill at least 10 people waiting for aid in Gaza City, reports Wafa.
U.S. airman sets self on fire in protest over Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Israel advances construction of 3,344 new illegal housing units in the occupied West Bank.
Gaza Media Office: Israeli forces have taken Palestinian civilians hostage and used them as human shields in several military operations.
‘One in six children in northern Gaza is malnourished’

While Israel’s violent aggression on Gaza approaches the five-month mark, the situation in the besieged enclave deteriorates by the day as the population undergoes an Israeli-imposed famine as a result of the blockade.

Following reports of a two-month-old baby starving to death on Friday, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has said the high risk of malnutrition continues to increase, with one in six children in northern Gaza “severely malnourished.”

“We continue to appeal for regular humanitarian access,” UNRWA said in a post on X.

Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian physician and humanitarian advocate, says infant death from starvation is a direct consequence of Israeli restrictions on aid entering the coastal enclave.

“This is not a tragedy; it is man-made. Starvation is being forced upon the people of Gaza by the Israeli occupation forces,” Gilbert, who has more than 30 years of experience working in Gaza hospitals, told Al Jazeera.

“Just two days ago, the international nutrition cluster came out with a very alarming report … that there is a sharp increase in the drivers of malnutrition in Gaza — food insecurity, a lack of diversity in the diet and decreasing infant and young child feeding possibilities.”

Gilbert said Israel’s restriction of food and water in the enclave was a “huge war crime.”

“How can the world just sit idly by and watch children die from starvation?”

The situation is the worst in the north of Gaza, where UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini says Israel has not allowed food to be delivered since January 25 and that the U.N.’s calls to send food aid have been denied and fallen on deaf ears.

Since then, Lazzarini said, UNRWA and other UN agencies “have warned against looming famine, appealed for regular humanitarian access, and stated that famine can be averted if more food convoys are allowed into northern Gaza on a regular basis.”

“This is a man-made disaster. The world committed to never let famine happen again. Famine can still be avoided, through genuine political will to grant access and protection to meaningful assistance. The days to come will once again test our common humanity and values,” he said.

Similarly, Samer Abdeljaber, the World Food Programme’s (WFP’s) director for emergencies, says enough food is stocked up across Gaza’s borders to feed the entire population. However, it cannot safely reach the war-torn population due to the ongoing violence and extensive Israeli security checks.

Ariel photos posted by Al Jazeera Arabic show over 2,000 aid trucks piled up on the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing in the southern Gaza Strip.

“We have enough food across the borders, even from Jordan and Egypt, to be able to support 2.2 million people,” said Abdeljaber, as cited by Al Jazeera.

“But we need to make sure we have the right access to Gaza from different crossings so that we can actually reach the people — whether they are in the north or the south or in the central areas.”

“Safe routes is one of our requirements to continue assistance to the north and that can only be guaranteed if that is a speedy process,” Abdelkader said. “Delays at the checkpoints are making it impossible for us to reach deeper into the north.”

Nada Tarbush, a diplomat at the Palestine Mission to the U.N., has urged world governments to intervene and ensure the “urgent delivery of food, clean water and medicine via airdrops in Gaza.”

“Blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid is a war crime. Using starvation as a means of warfare is a war crime. Collective punishment is a war crime,” she said in a post on X.

On Monday afternoon, Israel allowed the entry of 10 aid trucks into the northern part of the Gaza Strip amid reports of starvation, according to Al Jazeera correspondents. However, it is likely to be only a trickle compared to the needs of the desperate population.

“Clean water is scarce. Solid waste is accumulating. The spread of diseases is on the rise,” UNRWA has said.

“The situation is catastrophic, but UNRWA teams continue working to provide critical aid.”

Israeli forces kill Palestinians waiting for aid…again

Meanwhile, when humanitarian aid is allowed into the besieged enclave, the safety of civilians collecting the assistance is not protected or assured. Several reports continue to surface of Israeli forces targeting Palestinians waiting for humanitarian aid.

Most recently, on Sunday evening, Israeli forces killed at least ten people waiting for aid in Gaza City by shelling and firing on the crowds of Palestinians waiting for food aid trucks to arrive, reported Wafa.

At least 15 people were injured in the attack, and they have been transferred to the nearby al-Shifa Hospital.

According to Al Jazeera, two fishermen were also shot dead at the shore of Khan Younis.

Israel: Invasion of Rafah will happen no matter what

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued planning the Israeli assault on Rafah. Approximately 1.5 million Palestinians are seeking shelter in the southernmost city after being forcibly displaced, many of them several times, from other areas of Gaza.

Netanyahu has said if Israel and Hamas reach a deal, that it will delay a military operation in Rafah, but stressed to CBS News that Israel would have to invade at a certain point later.

“If we have a deal, it will be delayed somewhat, but it will happen. If we don’t have a deal, we’ll do it anyway,” Netanyahu said.

Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri has said that Netanyahu’s remarks have cast doubt over Israel’s willingness to secure a deal.

“Netanyahu’s comments show he is not concerned about reaching an agreement,” Abu Zuhri told Reuters, accusing the Israeli leader of wanting “to pursue negotiation under bombardment and the bloodshed [of Palestinians].”

As Israel’s plans advance, global concern has increased over the human cost of the operation.

The U.S. has called on Israel to present a “credible” plan for protecting civilians crammed into the city before launching the assault. At the same time, Israel’s European allies have warned against the offensive altogether.

“If the Israeli army were to launch an offensive on Rafah under these conditions, it would be a humanitarian catastrophe,” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has said.

“We think it is impossible to see how you can fight a war amongst these people. There’s nowhere for them to go,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary David Cameron

UNICEF has also warned that an attack on Rafah would be catastrophic, with more than 600,000 children sheltering in the path of an assault and a severely limited humanitarian lifeline already on the brink of collapse.

“Thousands more could die in the violence or by lack of essential services, and further disruption of humanitarian assistance. We need Gaza’s last remaining hospitals, shelters, markets and water systems to stay functional. Without them, hunger and disease will skyrocket, taking more child lives,” UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant has vowed to continue targeting Hezbollah regardless of the situation in Gaza.

“If anyone thinks that when we get a hostage release deal and pause in Gaza, it will alleviate what is going on here — they’re wrong,” Gallant said, according to Haaretz.

He added that Israel would push Hezbollah to retreat from its northern border “either by agreement or by force.”

Hezbollah and Israel have been exchanging fire since October, and the Lebanese group says it will not stop its attacks until the war on Gaza ends.

Netanyahu’s office issued a brief statement on Monday morning stating that they presented the War Cabinet with a “plan for evacuating the population from the areas of fighting in the Gaza Strip.”

It is unclear what those plans are. However, there are fears that Israel plans on forcibly expelling Gaza’s population to Egypt.

Gaza’s hospitals are still under attack

Hospitals across the Gaza Strip continue to struggle under Israel’s attacks, making it extremely difficult for Palestinian civilians to receive adequate medical care.

In Northern Gaza, the Palestinian Ministry of Health has said the situation is “beyond description,” as hospitals run out of fuel. Medical refrigerators have run out of electricity, which risks the destruction of large quantities of sensitive medication.

The lack of fuel has also had devastating consequences for rescue missions in the war-torn area, as dozens of ambulances and medical services have been taken out of service.

The effects of this shortage have also left dialysis and intensive care patients facing death due to the lack of basic supplies.

In Khan Younis, southern Gaza, a UN delegation observed “catastrophic conditions” during a visit to the besieged al-Amal Hospital in the city.

“The delegation witnessed the extent of the damage caused by Israeli occupation artillery shelling to several floors of the hospital, as well as the catastrophic conditions inside due to severe shortages in food, drinkable water, medical supplies, and medication,” the Palestinian Red Cresent said.

Meanwhile, at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, “snipers are still in the vicinity of the hospital and, tragically, are still shooting at anything moving near it,” Al Jazeera correspondent Hani Mahmoud reported from Gaza. “Despite the Israeli military’s statement that it has completed operations inside Nasser Hospital.”

Occupied West Bank: Illegal settlement construction

While the world’s eyes are on Gaza, Israel is taking the chance to advance the construction of 3,344 new housing units in the occupied West Bank, 2,350 units in the settlement of Maale Adumim, 694 in Efrat, and 300 in Kedar, according to Peace Now.

“They are significant and expansive projects that will greatly impact the possibility of reaching a two-state solution, especially the plans in Efrat and Kedar,” the Israeli nonprofit said in a statement.

“The decision to promote thousands of unnecessary and harmful housing units in settlements is a hasty and irresponsible decision by an extremist government that has long lost the trust of the people,” it added.

Palestinian Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh resigns

Palestinian Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh handed in his resignation to President Mahmoud Abbas at the opening of Monday’s government meeting in Ramallah, reports Reuters.

Shtayyeh said he was moved to step down due to the “unprecedented escalation” in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem and the “war, genocide and starvation in the Gaza Strip,” as cited by Al Jazeera.

Shtayyeh noted there are “efforts to make the [Palestinian Authority] an administrative and security authority without political influence, and the PA will continue to struggle to embody the state on the land of Palestine despite the occupation.”

“I see that the next stage and its challenges require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the new reality in Gaza and the need for a Palestinian-Palestinian consensus based on Palestinian unity,” he added.

U.S. military member self-immolation

A U.S. military service member set himself on fire in an act of protest against the war in Gaza outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

According to Reuters, an Air Force spokesperson confirmed that the incident, which occurred on Sunday afternoon and was live-streamed on Twitch, involved an active-duty airman.

“I will no longer be complicit in genocide,” said the man, wearing military fatigues, in the live video as he approached the embassy.

He then doused himself in a clear liquid and set himself on fire, repeatedly screaming, “Free Palestine,” in the viral footage.

NBC News has reported that the man, identified by social media as Aaron Bushnell, has succumbed to his wounds.

Similarly, in December 2023, CNN reported a person set themselves on fire outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta.

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-143-gaza-famine-is-man-made-says-unrwa-chief/

🚨 Study Claims COVID Caused More Heart Damage Than Vaccines — Here’s What the Authors Got Wrong

Rainer Johannes Klement, Ph.D + Harald Walach reanalyzed data and found that while coronaviruses might cause myocarditis, the COVID-19 vaccines cause at least as much or more.

Study Claims COVID Caused More Heart Damage Than Vaccines — Here’s What the Authors Got Wrong
A 2023 study admitted that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause myocarditis, but claimed the COVID-19 virus was even more damaging than the vaccine. A recent, more detailed review of their data, however, showed the opposite is likely true.

Angelo DePalma, Ph.D.
human heart with covid vaccine
Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.

Despite the known side effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, some studies (here, here and here) and health websites (here, here and here) argue that whatever vaccination’s adverse outcomes, being unvaccinated is worse.

In one such study, Dr. Christian Mueller and his co-authors concluded the COVID-19 virus — not the vaccine — was responsible for more myocarditis, or heart muscle damage, than the vaccine.

However, when Rainer Johannes Klement, Ph.D., a physicist at Leopoldina Hospital in Schweinfurt, Germany, and Harald Walach, a clinical psychologist and head of the Change Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland, reanalyzed Mueller’s data they found that while coronaviruses might cause myocarditis, the COVID-19 vaccines cause at least as much or more.

The Klement paper appeared in the Feb. 1 edition of The Egyptian Health Journal.

Mueller’s study

Mueller set out to quantify and compare myocarditis in vaxed versus unvaxed subjects and to explain possible mechanisms.

To explore these mechanisms, the researchers tested subjects for antibodies against interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), the SARS-CoV-2-nucleoprotein, the viral spike protein and 14 inflammatory cytokines.

Since none of these measures differed between study groups, the “mechanism” issue was unresolved.

To assess myocarditis investigators tested 777 hospital workers (median age 37, 69.5% women) for cardiac troponin T one and three days after they received an mRNA-1273 booster. Cardiologists typically prescribe this test after a suspected heart attack to quantify the extent and duration of heart damage.

Of the 40 subjects (5.1%) with elevated troponin on Day 3, 22 (2.8%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, with 20 cases occurring in women and two in men.

The researchers reported that among these subjects troponin elevations were mild and temporary and did not involve abnormalities as determined by electrocardiogram. No patients experienced “major adverse cardiac events” within 30 days of receiving the shot.

Mueller’s team concluded:

COVID-19 associates with a substantially higher risk for myocarditis that [sic] mRNA vaccination …
Myocarditis related to COVID-19 infection has shown a higher mortality than myocarditis related to mRNA vaccination.
Before the COVID-19 vaccine were [sic] available, the incidence and extent of myocardial injury associated with COVID-19 infection was [sic] much higher than observed in this active surveillance study after booster vaccination.
One of the Mueller co-authors had commercial ties to diagnostics companies. Another had previously been compensated by diagnostics and vaccine manufacturers. Mueller had relationships with diagnostics, pharmaceutical and vaccine companies at the time he wrote the paper.

Where did Mueller go wrong?

One way to measure treatment effects is to compare an outcome, for example, blood pressure, in the same subjects before and after the treatment and report before-and-after results.

Although this option was known to medical researchers and available to him, Mueller did not take advantage of it — either because he did not think to measure pre-booster troponin levels or chose not to report them for some reason, perhaps because they did not align with his other results.

Instead, his team took an approach that required two well-matched study groups. Although Mueller claimed placebos and controls met this requirement they differed on the feature that mattered most: heart health.

Vaccinated subjects with current or recent heart issues were excluded from the study, while all control subjects had just entered the hospital with heart symptoms and were therefore already at greater risk for myocarditis.

Klement and Walach found more anomalies in the Mueller paper.

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

Order Now

They began their critique by citing three 2021 studies on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis (here, here and here). All three studies showed myocarditis became a concern shortly after the COVID-19 vaccine introductions.

They discussed three papers in some detail:

A 2023 German autopsy study on 25 unexpected deaths within 20 days of COVID-19 vaccination identified acute myocarditis as the most probable cause of death in four cases.
A 2023 report on myocarditis in 303 non-vaccinated and 700 vaccinated asymptomatic subjects found significantly higher damage in the vaccinated persisting for up to 180 days post-vaccination.
One of the first autopsy papers, an Indian-led study based on World Health Organization pharmacovigilance data reported 2.1 times the risk for cardiac arrest, 2.7 times the risk for acute heart attack, 2.6 times the risk for elevated troponin, and 7.3-fold higher levels of D-dimer for COVID-19 vaccinations compared with the use of other medications.
These studies strongly suggest that myocarditis became an issue only after the mRNA vaccine rollouts. They contradict Mueller’s statement that the “extent of myocardial injury associated with COVID-19 infection was much higher than observed in this active surveillance study after booster vaccination.”

According to Klement and Walach, this statement is wrong for two reasons.

First, in addition to the non-equivalence of controls’ and subjects’ heart-health status, Mueller ignored the much larger number of COVID-19-infected, unhospitalized, unvaccinated individuals with (presumably) much lower troponin levels compared with patients entering the hospital with heart symptoms.

Second, Klement and Walach argued that the public health impact of myocarditis depends not only on the incidence or rate among study groups but the size of those groups. The significance is that a lower incidence in a very large group (vaccinated) is more meaningful than a slightly higher rate in a very small group (individuals infected with COVID-19).

scales of justice
Your support helps fund this work, and CHD’s related advocacy, education and scientific research.

Donate Now

On that basis, Klement and Walach estimated the number of myocarditis cases among all German COVID-19 hospitalizations at 27,467, and among those who were vaccinated at 1.97 million.

As a result, regardless of myocarditis severity, there were 71.7 times as many myocarditis cases among the vaccinated as among those hospitalized for COVID-19.

A similar analysis for Switzerland estimated 169,960 cases of myocarditis among vaccinated compared with 8,179 among those hospitalized for COVID-19. Although not as dramatic as the German estimates this still shows a much higher occurrence of heart damage among vaccinated versus hospitalized.

In a June 2021 paper, Walach, Klement and Dutch data analyst Wouter Aukema concluded that based on 700 adverse reactions, 16 serious side effects and 4.11 deaths for every 100,000 vaccinations, COVID-19 vaccines were released with insufficient safety data.

The authors said the risk-benefit ratio for mRNA vaccines did not add up because “for three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.”

Mueller told The Defender via email:

“Our study reveals an important lack of prospective safety data concerning COVID-19 vaccines. Given the magnitude of the vaccinated population compared to the much smaller proportion of the population that became infected and developed symptoms, including a small percentage with possible heart damage, our findings should remain qualitatively robust.”

LEARN MORE ⬇️
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/covid-study-myocarditis-vaccines/

Join ➡️ @ShankaraChetty

The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer?
There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.

The Epoch Times

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

By Dr. Yuhong Dong

Editor’s Note: This third installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we discussed the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and its links to ovarian insufficiency and autoimmune disease.

In part 3, we turn to questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, and the limitations of relevant clinical trials to detect such a type of effect.

Summary of key facts

There are multiple obstacles in designing a valid clinical trial to prove the HPV vaccine could prevent cervical cancer, e.g. long lead time, lack of adequate informed consent, complexity between HPV infection and cervical cancer and the negative impact of girls’ sexual behavior, which may worsen the risks of cervical cancer.
Most of the HPV’s interventional clinical trials have too short a follow-up time to draw a concrete conclusion.
In a large Swedish observational trial, which is treated as the most convincing study to prove the HPV vaccine’s effects on cervical cancer, a few confounding factors were not adequately balanced between the HPV vaccination group versus the unvaccinated group.
The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data and another U.S. study found the HPV vaccine has no effects in reducing cancer rates.
Two other registry-based studies in Australia and the U.K. suggest that HPV vaccination is associated with increased cervical cancer rates in certain age groups.
Long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer

Typically, there is a long period from HPV infection to cervical epithelium abnormalities, then cervical cancer.

HPV infections usually last 12–18 months and are eventually cleared by the immune system.

Fewer than 10% of HPV infections are persistent.

There are two types of precancerous cervical lesions, low-grade or high-grade. Low-grade cervical neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) is usually transient and resolves naturally within one to two years.

Only a few persistent infections progress to the clinically meaningful high-grade, CIN2 or 3. Meanwhile, the median time from CIN2/3 to transition to cancer is estimated to be 23.5 years.

Among those with weakened immune systems, HPV-related cancer might progress more quickly.

In a review of the natural history of HPV infection, the complex pathway from infection to cancer is elucidated, including what is known (purple boxes) and where uncertainty remains (blue boxes).



Difficulty running clinical trials for the HPV vaccine

Because of the long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer, a prospective, randomized controlled trial is not easily designed and feasibly implemented.

Lack of long-term follow-up is a common issue for most clinical trials to prove the HPV vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer.

For example, a 2007 study found that Gardasil was effective in reducing HPV-associated cervical precancerous lesions rate by 20%.

This study followed their subjects for only an average of three years after administration of the first dose.

Furthermore, due to the complex uncertainties in the natural history between HPV infection and cervical cancer, it is not easy to claim the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.

A randomized trial is designed to balance the two groups — vaccine and placebo — so that any unmeasured confounding variables which might influence the outcome of the trial are distributed evenly.

However, if the treatment group knows they got the vaccine, might their behaviors change? Might they be less risk-averse, thinking they have some protection?

For example, girls might think they are vaccinated and “protected” from cervical cancer and may tend to initiate sexual intercourse at a younger age or engage in sexual activities with more partners.

However, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners and oral contraceptive use are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer in women.

In other words, HPV vaccination may offer some protection if offered before sexual activity is initiated, but it may also be associated with increased behavioral risk factors.

Whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh any risks is therefore a multifactorial question deserving of careful longitudinal study.

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

Order Now

Systemic analysis of 12 clinical trials on HPV vaccine efficacy

In 2020, a Queen Mary University study led by Dr. Claire Rees reviewed 12 randomized clinical trials for Cervarix and Gardasil. The investigators found that the trials did not include populations representative of the vaccination target groups, and the trial design may have overstated vaccine efficacy.

For example, one trial design generated evidence that the vaccine prevents CIN1. But this is not meaningful because these lesions usually resolve on their own.

Furthermore, the study accessed efficacy against low-grade precancerous lesions. But this is not necessarily suggestive of efficacy against the more serious but much less frequent high-grade lesions.

Finally, the cytology screenings were done every six to 12 months instead of every 36 months (normal screening interval), meaning the efficacy of the vaccine may have been overestimated, as low-grade lesions could go away spontaneously.

All this is to say the HPV vaccine may be effective at preventing more serious lesions which lead to cervical cancer, but it is hard to know because of these poorly designed trials.

Nothing is conclusive without a larger trial powered to detect a difference in rates of more serious cervical changes according to the typical screening schedule. However, such a trial has not yet been performed.

Swedish nationwide health registry study

A nationwide Swedish health registry-based study followed 1,672,983 women for 12 years to assess the association between HPV vaccination and the risk of cervical cancer.

In this study, the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer was 47 cases per 100,000 women vaccinated and 94 per 100,000 unvaccinated, suggesting that HPV4 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of 49 to 63% of invasive cervical cancer at the population level.

Even though the results are positive, the study researchers raised a few concerns themselves.

First, HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women. This is known as “healthy volunteer bias.”

Second, a mother’s history of cervical cancer might be associated with both vaccination uptake and underlying risk of cervical cancer as well as screening rates.

Third, lifestyle and health factors such as smoking, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners, oral contraceptive use and obesity are reportedly associated with the risk of cervical cancer.

These factors have not been thoroughly analyzed by this study and could have contributed to the data.

Furthermore, parental education level and annual household income level may be interconnected with lifestyle factors such as smoking status.

Strengths of this study include its size, duration and outcome of interest being invasive cancer, not low-grade lesions. However, it is impossible to exclude the relationship between lifestyle factors, vaccination uptake and cervical cancer.

Only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) could balance the two groups on these unmeasured — but related — risk factors.

However even if the risk factors (sexual behaviors) are fully balanced at baseline with an RCT, it is hard to keep them still balanced during the whole study course after HPV vaccination.

No association found in a U.S. database

Meanwhile, researchers found no association between vaccination and cancer mortality in the U.S.

According to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program, the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer before Gardasil’s introduction in the U.S. had been steadily declining for years and, in 2006, was 2.4 per 100,000 women.

The data from 2016–2020 is 2.2 per 100,000 women — essentially unchanged.

In a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20–59 years, among 9,891 participants, the researchers did not find an association between HPV vaccination and HPV-related cancers.

Increase in cervical cancer after HPV vaccine rollout: Australia

In Australia, government data similarly reveal an increase in cervical cancer rates in certain age groups of women following the implementation of the Gardasil vaccine.

Thirteen years after Gardasil was recommended for teenagers and young adults, there has been a 30% increase in 30- to 34-year-old women (4.9 cases/100,000 compared to 6.6 cases/100,000 in 2020) being diagnosed with cervical cancer.

Even though the rates decreased in other age groups, the abnormal increase in the 30–34 age group needs an explanation.



Several factors should be considered.

First, this database does not tell the stage of cancer. More cancer diagnosed at an early stage may result in a cancer-rate increase.

Second, decreasing cancer rates could be caused by declines in screening rates, perhaps due to the pandemic and/or a reluctance to get tested.

Third, Australia has an increasing proportion of immigrants from South Asia, and these cultural factors may influence the cervical cancer-screening rate.

A study of South Asian women living in Australia found that almost half had never had a previous screening test.

Cervical cancer rates rise after HPV vaccination in the UK

In the U.K., HPV vaccination was introduced in 2008 for girls aged 12–13 with catch-up for those aged 14–18. Many expected cervical cancer rates in women aged 20–24 to fall by 2014 as the vaccinated cohorts entered their 20s.

However, in 2016 national statistics showed a worrying and substantial 70% increase in the rate of cervical cancer at ages 20 to 24 (i.e. from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014).

While the author would consider it to be too early to draw conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, this merits further study.

Accordingly, an analysis was conducted in the U.K. in 2018 in response to public interest regarding this increase in cervical cancer.

Researchers from Queen Mary University and King’s College London found that it was attributable to an increase in the proportion of women first screened at age 24.5 years.

The increase was limited to stage I cervical cancer. But there was no evidence of a lack of screening leading to increasing rates.

While the researchers considered it too early to conclude vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, these findings merit further study.

Could HPV vaccines make HPV infections worse?

Besides the vaccine’s unclear effectiveness in cancer prevention, studies further suggest the suppression of the HPV strains targeted by the vaccine may induce more virulent strains.

For example, a 2015 study found that vaccinated young adult women had a higher prevalence of high-risk HPV types other than types 16 and 18, putting them at risk for more aggressive cervical and other HPV-related cancers.

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

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

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-3-et/


https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-3.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are six takeaways from the review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order Now

2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

🌟 Join Our Growing Team! 🚀

Are you ready to embark on a journey of exciting opportunities and meaningful work, all from the comfort of your home? We're looking for exceptional online talents to join our dynamic team! Explore the world of possibilities as we're currently hiring for the following roles:
🖥️ Web Developer
🎨 Graphic Designer
📊 Data Entry Specialist
🌐 Virtual Assistant
✨ Typing Extraordinaire
Ready to take the next step in your career? Click the link below to become a part of our vibrant community:
👉 https://shorturl.at/djmOY

Rejecting the Bantustan ‘two-state solution’, Mandla Mandela calls for a single democratic state in Palestine
Tim Anderson
The popular but fallacious touchstone of a political resolution in Palestine has been a ‘two-state solution’. Washington constantly reverts to this and, more disturbingly, so too do many of Palestine’s international friends. Yet, faced with an apartheid regime, the idea is outdated and irrelevant, South African leader Mandla Mandela pointed out at the 5th Global Convention of Solidarity with Palestine, over 3-5 December in Johannesburg.

Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson, head of the Mandela Foundation, clan chief, and an ANC member of Parliament, called for a global anti-apartheid campaign aimed at dismantling the Israeli regime, rejecting the Bantustan-like 'two-state solution', and calling for a single democratic state in Palestine.

South Africans know about Bantustans: these were the so-called native ‘homelands’ – small enclaves set up to help enforce apartheid and prevent democracy in South Africa. The most recent ‘two-state’ proposal, put up by the Trump administration in 2020, shares many features with these Bantustans. But few outside South Africa remember this history in detail.

The ‘two-state solution’ seems to have support in UNSC resolutions since 1967 (#242 and its successors), but the right “to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries” was conditional on Israeli withdrawal “from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The Israeli regime never met that condition. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s saw the PLO recognizing an "Israeli state", on the basis that the colonization of the West Bank would end and a Palestinian state would emerge. Those conditions were never met.

Veteran analyst Rashid Khalidi, a leading US scholar on Palestine, says there was never a serious attempt by the Israelis or Washington to create an Arab state that would be “sovereign, contiguous and viable." Further, the entrenchment of second-class citizenship for Arab Israelis (in ‘1948 Palestine’), the emergence of an open apartheid regime on the West Bank, and the periodic massacres in Gaza have imposed a new reality.

Yet, the pretext of ‘two states’ and the myth of a “return to 1967 borders” (a fantasy destroyed by constant Israeli colonization of the occupied territories) is maintained to obscure the reality of a predatory apartheid Israeli regime that can never co-exist with an independent Palestine. Washington and the Israelis understand that the fig leaf of ‘two states’ hides apartheid and prevents the construction of a broad anti-apartheid movement.

That path is obscured by the ‘two states’ myth, as two former Israeli prime ministers have pointed out. In 2017, former PM Ehud Barak warned that the regime was “on a slippery slope” toward apartheid. Similarly, former PM Ehud Olmert (2007) said, “If the day comes when the [idea of a] two-state solution collapses and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," then we will face an “apartheid-like struggle … [and] the State of Israel is finished."

The Trump ‘peace plan’ of 2020 is the most recent, detailed version of the deceptive 'two-state' idea. It supported the illegal West Bank, Syrian Golan, and eastern part of al-Quds annexations, trying to ‘normalize’ those breaches of earlier international agreements and offering some desert land in ‘compensation’. In recent years these ‘settlements’ have grown so that there are more than 700,000 Israeli colonists on the West Bank. Despite muted international protests, "Tel Aviv’s" backing for this process makes it unlikely that the ‘settlers’ might (as was done in Gaza) simply be persuaded to pack up and go home. Under the Trump ‘peace plan’, total Israeli control over borders, security, and even education would be maintained. That is a close parallel to the Bantustan policy of apartheid South Africa, as Mandla Mandela observed.

The Palestinian struggle can and should draw important lessons from South Africa’s anti-apartheid campaigns and draw on the political capital it built, including in international resolutions. First of all, in 1973, the United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity, punishable under the 1988 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Systematic racial discrimination is a crime that should not be aided and abetted, and the Israeli entity has been declared an apartheid regime by six independent reports. As jurists Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley (2017) point out, “States have a collective duty: (a) not to recognize an apartheid regime as lawful; (b) not to aid or assist a state in maintaining an apartheid regime; and (c) to cooperate with the United Nations and other States in bringing apartheid regimes to an end.” That duty militates against recognition of or support for the apartheid regime as a ‘state’.

Second, while the South African apartheid regime tried to present the Bantustan enclaves as some form of ‘self-determination’, this was rejected both by black South Africans and the United Nations. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said tribal enclaves had nothing to do with the South African reality, “we are thoroughly detribalized, it is the government of South Africa that has sought to exacerbate tribal feelings." The Bantustan policy and practice aimed at reinforcing apartheid by forcing the majority black African population into 13% of the country’s land, with few resources and basic services. Yet collaborating chiefs like Gatsha Buthelezi of KwaZulu were relied on to present a veneer of tribal ‘independence’. This Bantustan policy, including the third class ‘Bantu education’ system which began in the 1950s and catalyzed huge protests, was said to be “the logical territorial extension of apartheid as both a general policy and a way of life for whites as a single preferred tribe over blacks as an inferior collection of tribes."

In the 1970s, three UN resolutions were passed, which condemned the Bantustan policy. In 1971, General Assembly Resolution 2775 E (XXVI) on the Establishment of Bantustans condemned the practice as “in pursuance of apartheid," “violating the right to self-determination,” and “prejudicial to territorial integrity." In 1975, General Assembly Resolution 3411 D (XXX) on Apartheid again condemned the Bantustan policy, and in 1976, the General Assembly unanimously (with the USA abstaining) passed Resolution 31/6 which condemned the designation of an “independent” Transkei Bantustan as “sham independence”, calling on all governments to not recognize it and to prohibit dealings with the artificial entity. The UN, thus, authoritatively condemned the creation of small subordinate enclaves in place of national self-determination for black South Africans.

Just as Apartheid South Africa tried to force the majority Black population into 13% of the country’s land, so the Israelis have forced Palestinians into increasingly restricted enclaves, all of which are controlled by the Israeli regime.

While the Palestinian Arab population today, according to Israeli officials, is about the same as the Jewish, the Israeli population's control of land and resources is massively unequal. The so-called Palestinian Territories comprise about 22% of historic Palestine and, of that, more than half is zoned to be under exclusive Israeli control Anera.

Zionist apologists try to justify the steady land theft by saying, first of all, that the Israelis acquired that land by military conquest (in the post-colonial era, UNSC 242 declared such claims null and void) and second, that Palestinians somehow acquired control over land for “the first time” under the Oslo Accords. In fact, Palestinians lost even more land to Israeli "annexation" after the Oslo Accords.

The Israeli lobby has relentlessly abused Chief Mandla Mandela. Responding to his accusations that "Israel" had “committed genocide and crimes against humanity," Tali Feinberg claimed that Mandla’s “anti-Israel vitriol contrasts with his grandfather’s legacy.” Indeed, Nelson Mandela met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Ezer Weizman and said, in 1999, “I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognise Israel within secure borders." Feinberg blames Mandla’s anti-"Israel" stance on his conversion to Islam.

However, Nelson Mandla was responding to the circumstances of the early 1990s, when his friend Yasser Arafat was engaged in the Oslo Accords, and no reports on the Apartheid character of the Israeli colonial regime had yet emerged. After the failure of the Oslo agreements to produce any benefit, and after six independent reports branding "Israel" as apartheid regime, Chief Mandla is justified in adjusting his response.

Support for the armed, as well as civil resistance in Palestine, has been a feature of Chief Mandla Mandela’s advocacy. It was his grandfather, after all, who created uMkhonto we Siswe (MK, the spear of the nation), the armed wing of the ANC, when all other avenues had failed. So, at a time when Western regimes try to brand all Palestinian Resistance as ‘terrorism’, Chief Mandela has urged the factions “to come together and have joint operations” to defend their land. He also backed the call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions on the Israeli regime.

After the December 2023 conference in Johannesburg, Mandla Mandela stood alongside leaders of various Palestinian Resistance factions at Government House in Pretoria. Recalling his grandfather’s famous quote, “We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians," Mandla Mandela recognized that Palestinians had the “absolute right” to the land of their forefathers using all available means, including armed resistance.

Chief Mandela made it very clear that the call for a true and meaningful liberation for Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea was one that means a one-state solution for indigenous Palestinians including the inalienable right of return for over seven million refugees and their descendants, displaced since 1948.

Mandla Mandela called on South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to abandon the “two-state delusion” in favor of a single democratic state for all indigenous peoples of Palestine, abandoning separate development, racism, and apartheid in occupied Palestine.

South African veterans and leaders have a unique experience and moral authority to denounce Bantustan-like proposals that divert the Palestinian struggle from its emancipatory goals.

https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/rejecting-the-bantustan--two-state-solution---mandla-mandela

Israel’s strategy is “cold and calculated, and lacks any sense of decency” – Day 60
[email protected] December 5, 2023 ethnic cleansing, Gaza, hamas, humanitarian aid, Israel, tunnel
Israel’s strategy is “cold and calculated, and lacks any sense of decency” – Day 60
UNICEF spokesperson says alleged Gaza safe zones are ‘zones of death’ In a Sky News interview, UNICEF spokesperson James Elder says Israel’s proclaimed ‘safe zones’ in Gaza are ‘zones of death’ with increased risk for disease. Elder says Israeli authorities are fully aware of the dire consequences in the alleged safe zones, and that the decision to push 80% of the population into a zone that is 4% the size of Gaza is ‘cold’ and ‘calculated’ and lacks ‘any sense of decency’.

Khan Younis and Rafah: Monday night was terrifying for residents of Khan Younis and Rafah, and 1.5 million evacuees. Since early yesterday evening, there has been non-stop heavy artillery shelling, relentless air strikes and mass bombardment.

The vast majority of residential homes and public facilities – schools, hospitals, medical centers and shops – in the eastern side of Khan Younis, have been completely destroyed. At the same time, people were ordered to evacuate in the middle of the night and early hours of this morning under heavy bombardment.

As ambulances tried to get to the eastern side of Khan Younis to Abasan al-Kabira and Bani Suheila, where people were stranded and caught under the heavy bombardment, they were shot at and could not evacuate any of the injured or bring out any of those who were killed overnight.

The Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis has called for blood donations due to the high number of severely injured patients arriving every hour. Twenty-six out of 35 hospitals in Gaza are currently out of service, and 52 out of 72 primary healthcare clinics have been shut down.

Palestinian officials in Gaza say Israeli jets dropped phosphorus bombs north and east of Khan Younis. (Use of white phosphorus in civilian areas is considered a war crime due to its extremely dangerous effects on the human body. White phosphorus ignites instantly when in contact with oxygen. It can burn through the human body, including through bone, causing severe, excruciating damage. It can also cause extreme harm when inhaled, with risks of suffocation, cardiovascular failure, coma, death, and other lifelong effects. The substance burns at temperatures of up to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit.)


Nasser hospital staff are stretched to their limits as casualties mount in southern Gaza, says UNICEF. Fifty-two of 72 primary healthcare clinics have shut down in Gaza. [Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters] (photo)
Central Gaza: Israeli jets targeted the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza this morning. Bombing began around 6:05am (04:05 GMT) while most residents were asleep, leading to a total “state of panic”. At least 15 houses were “completely destroyed” more than 15 people were killed, including children. Many wounded are still trapped under the rubble.
The Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) has shared footage of the moment an Israeli artillery tank targeted the vicinity of two ambulances in Gaza. PRCS said the two ambulances were attending to casualties in Deir el-Balah, southern Gaza.

Northern Gaza: Gaza’s health ministry is warning of a “massacre” at Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, where Israeli tanks and snipers are reportedly surrounding the facility and “shooting at anyone who moves”; Israeli forces have already killed 108 civilians and injured dozens in the hospital’s vicinity. Munir al-Bursh, director-general of the Health Ministry in Gaza, said,

The Israeli occupation forces have laid siege to the facility from all sides. Patients and those who took shelter here are gripped with fear and overwhelmed by horror.

The Israeli forces are attacking with the aim of forcibly removing all those inside the hospital. These are patients, victims and displaced civilians.

We, the medical staff, are holding our ground. We are standing by our patients. We will continue to serve our people by all means left here at Kamal Adwan Hospital.

UN says no place is safe: The United Nations warns that creating “so-called safe zones” for civilians to flee to within the Gaza Strip is impossible amid Israel’s bombing campaign. The Israeli army, which initially focused much of its offensive on the north of the enclave, has now dropped leaflets on parts of the south, telling Palestinian civilians there to flee to other areas. “The so-called safe zones … are not scientific, they are not rational, they are not possible, and I think the authorities are aware of this,” said UNICEF spokesperson James Elder.

Journalists face grave threats: The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that 63 journalists and media workers have been killed since October 7. The overall death toll includes 56 Palestinians, four Israelis and three Lebanese nationals. Sherif Mansour, CPJ’s Middle East and North Africa program coordinator, said,

CPJ emphasizes that journalists are civilians doing important work during times of crisis and must not be targeted by warring parties. Journalists across the region are making great sacrifices to cover this heart-breaking conflict. Those in Gaza, in particular, have paid, and continue to pay, an unprecedented toll and face exponential threats.

Humanitarian update

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said the resumption of the Israeli military operation and its expansion further in southern Gaza is repeating horrors from past weeks. He added,

The latest developments are further strangling the humanitarian operation, with limited supplies going in and complex logistical and coordination arrangements that slow down and at times obstruct the flow. The Israeli Authorities continue to restrict the flow of humanitarian supplies, including fuel, forcing the UN to only use the ill-equipped crossing point with Egypt.

We call on the State of Israel to reopen Kerem Shalom and other crossings and facilitate the unconditional, uninterrupted and meaningful delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance. The failure to do so violates international humanitarian law.

On 4 December, 100 aid trucks carrying humanitarian supplies and 69,000 litres of fuel entered from Egypt into Gaza, about the same as the previous day. This is well below the daily average of 170 trucks and 110,000 litres of fuel that had entered during the humanitarian pause implemented between 24 and 30 November.

On 4 December, for the second consecutive day, Rafah was the only governorate in Gaza where limited aid distributions, primarily of flour and water, took place.

On 4 December at about 20:30, the main telecommunication provider in Gaza announced that all telecom services had shut down due to cuts in the main fibre routes. This followed a partial shutdown in Gaza city and northern Gaza a few hours earlier due to ongoing hostilities. Humanitarian agencies and first responders have warned that blackouts jeopardize the already constrained provision of life-saving assistance.

Al-Azhar University of Gaza before and after Israel bombed the institution
Al-Azhar University of Gaza before and after Israel bombed the institution. The university was built in 1991 (photo)
Other Gaza updates

Agriculture destroyed: Human Rights Watch (HRW) has found that orchards, greenhouses and farmland have been razed due to Israel’s ground invasion in the north of Gaza. In Beit Hanoun in northeast Gaza, what was once green agricultural land has now become “brown and desolate”, increasing concerns about food insecurity and the loss of livelihoods.

The razing continued during the seven-day truce and satellite imagery showed the destruction of farmland by Israel’s use of bulldozers to carve new roads for its armored vehicles.

Israel set to possibly flood Gaza’s tunnel system: the Wall Street Journal reports:

Israel has assembled a system of large pumps it could use to flood Hamas’s vast network of tunnels under the Gaza Strip with seawater, a tactic that could destroy the tunnels and drive the fighters from their underground refuge but also threaten Gaza’s water supply, U.S. officials said.

The Israel Defense Forces finished assembling large seawater pumps roughly one mile north of the Al-Shati refugee camp around the middle of last month. Each of at least five pumps can draw water from the Mediterranean Sea and move thousands of cubic meters of water per hour into the tunnels, flooding them within weeks.

Sentiment inside the U.S. was mixed. Some U.S. officials privately expressed concern about the plan, while other officials said the U.S. supports the disabling of the tunnels and said there wasn’t necessarily any U.S. opposition to the plan. The Israelis have identified about 800 tunnels so far, though they acknowledge the network is bigger than that.

Because it isn’t clear how permeable the tunnels are or how much seawater would seep into the soil and to what effect, it is hard to fully assess the impact of pumping seawater into the tunnels, said Jon Alterman, senior vice president at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s hard to tell what pumping seawater will do to the existing water and sewage infrastructure. It is hard to tell what it will do to groundwater reserves. And it’s hard to tell the impact on the stability of nearby buildings,” Alterman said.

RECOMMENDED READING: ICRC president describes human suffering in Gaza as ‘intolerable’

Attacks on southern Gaza promise to be “worse” than north: Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, has been saying that what will come to the southern part of the Gaza Strip will not only be equal to what we saw in the north but, actually, even worse. He says the army is going to continue its ground operation inside of the northern part of the Gaza Strip. He also said that Israeli troops are going to remain stationed there until every single Hamas target – infrastructure and fighters – is eliminated.

Palestinians mourn the death of loved ones who were killed by Israeli bombardment in the southern Gaza Strip
Palestinians mourn the death of loved ones who were killed by Israeli bombardment in the southern Gaza Strip (photo)
RECOMMENDED READING: Is Israel’s Gaza bombing also a war on the climate?

West Bank, Jerusalem, and Israel news

Israeli settlers break into Jerusalem’s Aqsa mosque: Dozens of fanatic Israeli settlers Tuesday morning broke into the compounds of al-Aqsa Mosque under heavy protection from the Israeli police. The extremist settlers divided into groups, raided the holy Islamic Mosque from al-Maghariba gate and took provocative tours in its compounds. The settlers performed Talmudic rituals in the eastern part of the Mosque.

Jerusalem Palestinian killed: A Palestinian was Tuesday morning killed, while his brother was detained, by Israeli forces during a raid in Qalandia camp, north of occupied Jerusalem. Witnesses said that the occupation forces violently stormed Manasra’s and blew up the door of the house just as he was about to open it, with a bomb that disintegrated his body. The occupation forces later detained his brother before they withdrew.

Israel says Jerusalemite children released in recent prisoner swap can’t go back to school: Families of the child prisoners released in the recent exchange deal said that the schools’ administrations affiliated with the so-called Israeli Ministry of Education and the occupation municipality in Jerusalem refused the return of their children to school.

2 Palestinians killed Monday night: Two Palestinian youths was Monday evening killed after they were shot by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Sa’ir, northeast of Hebron. The Ministry of Health said that Anas Ismail al-Froukh, 23, and Mohammad Saa’di al-Frouk, 22, died due to their severe injuries by Israeli forces.

Major new settlement plan approved for occupied East Jerusalem: Ir Amim, an organization that focuses on the Israel-Palestine conflict in Jerusalem, says that amid the ongoing war in Gaza, Israel is seeking to expand the settler presence in occupied East Jerusalem. “Today, officials shockingly announced the approval of the Lower Aqueduct plan – the first major new settlement plan to be fully approved in East Jerusalem since [the settlement of] Givat Hamatos in 2012,” the group said.

This plan has disastrous ramifications, the group said, predicting “It will extend the Israeli settlement wedge along East Jerusalem’s southern boundary, further sealing [it] off from the southern West Bank, while fracturing the Palestinian space and depleting more vacant land for Palestinian development.”

Israel says three more soldiers were killed during fighting on Tuesday and four others were seriously injured in various battles in northern Gaza. More than 80 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since the start of the ground invasion of the Palestinian enclave, the UN said on Tuesday, citing official Israeli sources. It was not known if the latest deaths announced by Israel were part of that total.

RECOMMENDED VIEWING: Watch: Debunking Israel’s “mass rape” propaganda

The firing of rockets by Palestinian armed groups towards Israeli population centers has continued over the past 24 hours, with no reported fatalities. (Information on rocket attacks is here.) It appears that the last time a rocket killed an Israeli was October 7-8, as reported by Ha’aretz and the Times of Israel. 15 Israelis were killed – 10 of them Palestinian Israelis who reportedly had no access to bomb shelters. Rockets have killed a total of 35 Israelis over the 22 years they’ve been fired,.

Elsewhere

Resigned US State Department official reveals details of child rape case in Israeli prison, calls for accountability: In a CNN interview, former US State Department official Josh Paul discloses a troubling incident involving the alleged rape of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy in an Israeli prison. The State Department’s inquiry into the case resulted in Israeli officials shutting down the charity involved in bringing the case to light.

Paul condemned ongoing atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank and called for accountability. He questioned the US foreign policy’s impact on global perceptions and whether the US is using its ‘leverage’ to end the Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

Josh Paul resigned from the US State Department in October over the Biden administration’s decision to continue sending weapons and ammunition to Israel following the Israeli war on Gaza.

More pro-Israel legislation: A week after US lawmakers expressed frustration in having to vote for yet another pro-Israel resolution, the House is expected to vote again this week to declare anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, in a new bill which critics say will further undermine free speech protected by the US constitution.

House Resolution 894 — introduced by Jewish Republicans, Representative David Kustoff (Tenn.) and Max Miller (Ohio) – “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” The bill embraces the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) so called working definition of anti-Semitism, which, while not explicitly mentioning anti-Zionism, includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor,” as anti-Semitic.

Some Democratic senators say that Israel’s military must adopt substantive measures to lessen civilian deaths in Gaza as part of receiving the supplemental $14.3 billion in US aid for Israel’s war, but only a few call for a ceasefire (Bernie Sanders is not among them). House Resolution 786 calling for a ceasefire has 17 cosponsors. (Bernie Sanders is not among them.)

Poll shows split support in US for Israel’s war on Gaza: A survey by US polling agency Gallup shows among members of US President Joe Biden’s Democratic Party, only 36 percent support the war as opposed to 71 percent among opposition Republican Party members.

Biden received a 32 percent approval rating for his handling of the Gaza conflict. Also, four in 10 Americans surveyed say the US is sending too little aid to the Palestinians in Gaza.



Statistics as of Dec. 4:

Palestinian death toll: OCHA reports at least 15,688* (~15,428 in Gaza** (4,257 women and 6,387 children), and at least 260 in the West Bank). This does not include an estimated 7,000 more still buried under rubble. Euro-Med Monitor reports 20,360 Palestinian deaths.

*IAK does not yet include 471 Gazans killed in the Al Ahli hospital blast since the source of the projectile is being disputed; although much evidence points to Israel as the culprit, experts are still looking into the incident. Israel is blocking an international investigation. Israel killed more Palestinians in a little over a month after Oct. 7 than in all the previous 22 years combined.

Palestinian injuries: 44,595** (including at least 42,000 in Gaza** and 3,365 in the West Bank). **NOTE: it is impossible to offer an accurate number of injuries in Gaza due to the ongoing bombardment and communication disruption.

It remains unknown how many Americans are among the casualties. in Gaza**. About 1.8 million people have been displaced (nearly 80% of the population).

Reported Israeli death toll ~1,200 (7 killed in West Bank, 80 in Gaza), including 32 Americans, and 5,431 injured, approximately 30 children).

NOTE: It is unknown at this time how many of the deaths and injuries in Israel may have been caused by Israeli soldiers; additionally, since Israel has a policy of universal conscription, it is unknown how many of those attending the outdoor rave a few miles from Gaza on stolen Palestinian land were Israeli soldiers.

Find previous daily casualty figures and daily news updates here. For more news, go here and here.**** Live broadcast news from the region is here.

RELATED READING:

US poised to give Israel $18 billion in aid this year
Gaza Civilians, Under Israeli Barrage, Are Being Killed at Historic Pace
Israel has lost control of the narrative – October 7 truths coming out
Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war
What media reports fail to tell you about October 7
More Palestinians killed in past 34 days than in the past 22 years combined

https://israelpalestinenews.org/israel-strategy-cold-calculated-lacks-decency-day-60/

His Secret Obsession — Insane Conversions and 90%!
Unlock the Hidden Pathway to His Heart: Discover “His Secret Obsession” for Insane Conversions and 90% Success Rate!
In matters of the heart, understanding the intricacies of human emotions and desires can be both a challenge and a necessity. Whether you’re navigating the early stages of a relationship, seeking to rekindle the spark, or simply aiming to foster a deeper connection, “His Secret Obsession” offers a unique and proven approach to capturing the heart of the man you desire.
Cracking the Code of Male Psychology:
Relationships are a dance of emotions, communication, and unspoken desires. “His Secret Obsession” delves into the world of male psychology, revealing the hidden triggers that can ignite intense feelings of love, devotion, and attraction. This program isn’t about manipulation; it’s about tapping into the authentic connections that make relationships thrive.
Key Insights and Strategies:
The Hero Instinct: Men possess a natural instinct to be a hero and protector. “His Secret Obsession” explores how activating this hero instinct can create a powerful emotional bond, making a man feel valued and essential in your life.
Communication Unveiled: Effective communication is at the core of any successful relationship. This program uncovers the language and phrases that can spark intrigue, engagement, and deep conversations, fostering intimacy and emotional connection.
Understanding Triggers: Emotions like attraction and devotion are often triggered by specific actions and behaviors. “His Secret Obsession” offers insights into these triggers, enabling you to create a lasting and meaningful bond with the man you desire.
Creating Emotional Investment: Building a strong relationship requires mutual emotional investment. The program provides strategies to inspire a man to invest deeply in the relationship, ensuring commitment and loyalty.
Why Choose “His Secret Obsession”?
Proven Success: With a staggering 90% success rate, “His Secret Obsession” has transformed countless relationships worldwide. The program’s methods have been tried, tested, and validated by real-life success stories.
Ethical and Authentic: “His Secret Obsession” doesn’t involve manipulation or deceit. Instead, it offers a genuine approach to understanding and nurturing the emotional connection that lies at the heart of strong relationships.
Adaptable to All Stages: Whether you’re in a new relationship, facing challenges, or simply want to enhance an already strong connection, the program’s insights are relevant and adaptable to all stages of a relationship.
Empowerment Through Knowledge: By understanding male psychology and emotional triggers, you gain the tools to build a fulfilling and lasting relationship based on mutual respect, admiration, and genuine affection.
Unlock the Door to Lasting Love:
“His Secret Obsession” goes beyond traditional relationship advice and offers a deep dive into the realm of emotions, psychology, and meaningful connection. If you’re seeking to create a loving and lasting relationship, this program provides the keys to unlock a man’s heart and build a bond that stands the test of time.
Invest in your relationship’s future today and explore the transformative power of “His Secret Obsession.” Remember, by fostering a deeper understanding of your partner’s desires and emotions, you’re opening the door to a love story that’s truly extraordinary.
Relationships
Dating
Dating Tips
Lovestory promolink https://www.digistore24.com/redir/489429/Abrar769/

Covid Vaccine Injury Suit May Fuel Federal Overhaul, Litigation
A lawsuit by Covid-19 vaccine recipients claiming they were injured by their shots may usher in long-awaited changes to how the federal government handles immunization injuries.

Individuals frustrated by the HHS program designed to compensate them for their injuries are taking their grievances to court. In a lawsuit lodged with the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, they say the program is unconstitutional, depriving them of their rights to due process and a jury trial.

Lawyers say the move could spur Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services to reform how they handle vaccine injuries, as well as push more of the individuals alleging injuries to not just sue the government, but the drugmakers that the program is meant to shield from litigation.

“‘This is the first domino to fall,” said David Carney, a Green & Schafle LLC attorney representing people injured by vaccines. “We’re going to start to see a windfall.”

For years, attorneys and activists representing Americans injured by routine vaccinations have been pushing lawmakers to reform how the HHS reviews requests for compensation. They say that the process, dubbed the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, is in desperate need for more special masters to review the backlog of nearly 4,000 injury claims.

Congress, they add, needs to expedite the process for adding new vaccines to the program, though lawmakers have yet to pull the trigger on legislation that’s been several years in the works.

Covid vaccine injuries are not among those currently under the VICP. Those are filed with the HHS’ Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program.

Created in 2010 to pay out damages for people injured in sudden health crises like Ebola and the Anthrax scare, critics say the CICP program is slow moving, opaque, and poorly equipped for handling the nearly 11,000 claims alleging Covid-related injuries awaiting or in review as of Oct. 1. And with a little more than 1,000 decisions reached, vaccine attorneys don’t expect the others to be resolved any time soon.

Vaccine law experts say the path forward is reforming the VICP and bringing Covid-19 immunization injuries under its umbrella. But doing so takes both the HHS and Congress, and attorneys say efforts from both appear lagging.

‘Best Interest’

Adding a vaccine to the VICP is no small feat. The HHS first has to recommend a jab for routine administration to children, and then the agency has two years to recommend that it be covered by the VICP.

In the case for Covid vaccines, the HHS has already recommended jabs for routine administration to children. Through informal conversations with HHS employees, Carney said he and others in the vaccine law space were led to believe Covid vaccines were going to be moved over to the VICP, though the agency has yet to take any action to make that happen.

Now, people suffering injuries allegedly from Covid vaccines “feel like the government is not acting in their best interest,” and are hiring attorneys, he said.

The burden, however, doesn’t entirely lie with the HHS. In order for the VICP to actually pay out for Covid injuries, Congress would have to sign off on taxing the doses for the program, a process that applies to any vaccine added to the program.

Over the past several years, lawmakers have put forth legislation to modernize the program. Earlier this year, Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) introduced bills that would move pending Covid-19 vaccine injury claims to the VICP, bring on more special masters to review cases, and eliminate the need for Congress to sign off on a tax for every vaccine added to the table.

In October, React19—a group for people injured by Covid vaccines and a plaintiff in the lawsuit—briefed lawmakers about the need for changes.

Renee Gentry, director of George Washington University Law School’s Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic, presented alongside React19 and has been urging lawmakers for reforms for a decade.

When it comes to getting Congress on board, she said “talking about vaccine on the Hill is a little bit like walking on the edge of a razorblade that’s on fire.”

“It’s a very, very subtle dance up there,” she said, adding it’s nearly impossible to have a “reasoned, calm, specific” conversation about vaccines.

Insufficient Remedy

An HHS spokesperson likewise called out Congress for not fully funding the HHS’s budget request for the CICP, though noted the agency has tried making “meaningful CICP process improvement,” such as bringing on more medical reviewers and improving communications with people requesting benefits from the program.

The spokesperson also said the Health Resources and Services Administration, the HHS entity that oversees the VICP and Countermeasures Program, is “working to establish” a table that would “list and explain injuries that, based on the statutory compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence standard, are presumed to be caused by covered COVID-19 countermeasures.”

Gentry, however, said there’s a growing frustration with the CICP’s handling of Covid claims, and that the program is “not appropriate for anything on this scale.”

In total, 12,233 Covid-19 claims have been filed with the CICP. More than 9,000 of those allege Covid-19 vaccines were involved in injuries or deaths. That’s the bulk of the 12,775 claims brought to the program over the past 13 years.

While only a small fraction of Countermeasure Program’s Covid claims have been addressed, the overwhelming majority of those—1,235—have been denied. Most missed a filing deadline.

The program has deemed 32 claims eligible for compensation; only 6 have resulted in compensation, all of which involved Covid-19 vaccines.

“An unsatisfactory remedy has now shown itself to be unsatisfactory,” said Christina Ciampolillo, past president of the Vaccine Injured Petitioners Bar Association. “There’s not a lot of promise that you can point to for changes to the CICP in the future.”

Nevertheless, in May, the HHS extended liability protections under the CICP until the end of 2024. After that, Ciampolillo said, it becomes an open question as to whether Covid vaccine manufacturers would be open to lawsuits from people alleging injury.

“There’s a deadline there,” said Ciampolillo, an attorney at Conway Homer PC. “That’s kind of the no man’s land that everybody is wondering about.”

More Lawsuits

The lawsuit against the HHS may serve as the catalyst for ushering in change.

“If case does move forward, I would suspect HHS would work more closely in concert to finally get these important bills that will streamline compensation moving,” said Brianne Dressen, co-chair of React19 who experienced blurred vision, severe paresthesia, and other afflictions after a shot of AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine during a clinical trial.

However, should the case fail, Dressen said her group would “continue to seek other avenues through the legal system,” including “other types of lawsuits” and applying more “pressure in the halls of Washington.”

Likewise, vaccine injury attorneys said more lawsuits could follow.

“There’s probably a large number of injured people, and the more negative outcomes that are realized through the CICP, I think you’ll have more frustrated individuals,” Ciampolillo said.

The CICP essentially shields drugmakers from lawsuits. But Carney said that given there’s “not a sufficient legal forum to adjudicate” Covid-19 injury claims and that the CICP isn’t “a suitable alternative to civil tort litigation,” it is arguable that pharmaceutical companies could be next in line to be sued.

“Very soon, we’re going to see people sue the vaccine manufacturers,” Carney said.


PM can grace bloomberg forum but bloomberg might get POFMA?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/covid-vaccine-injury-suit-may-fuel-federal-overhaul-litigation

No paywall site
https://archive.is/1qIga