• UN - Agenda 2030 - "Sustainable Development"

    PART 1 OF 2

    In 2015 the leaders of 193 countries signed their population up to Agenda 2030

    What is Sustainable Development (SD)?
    SD is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

    Core Principles:

    Universality (all countries committed to whole Agenda regardless of any unique factors)

    Leaving No One Behind (all people will be included; “with unprecedented need for data to ensure this principle is met”)

    Interconnectedness and Indivisibility – no pick and mix approach to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – all to be followed

    Inclusiveness – the entire population must follow

    Multi Stakeholder Partnerships – establishment seen as essential to deliver all SDG’s

    Dimensions of the Agenda (the 5Ps)
    People, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership and Peace

    Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
    Used to focus on areas necessary to achieve SD

    Each SDG has 8-12 targets & 1-4 indicators of progress

    SDG'S:

    Goal 1: End poverty
    Goal 2: End hunger
    Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives
    Goal 4: Quality education
    Goal 5: Gender equality
    Goal 6: Water/sanitation for all
    Goal 7: Affordable clean energy for all
    Goal 8: Economic growth/full + productive employment
    Goal 9: Resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization/innovation
    Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries
    Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient & sustainable
    Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption + production patterns
    Goal 13: Combat climate change
    Goal 14: Conserve/sustainably use oceans, seas & marine resources
    Goal 15: Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, forests, deserts & land
    Goal 16: Promote inclusive societies, access to justice + accountable institutions
    Goal 17: Strengthen/revitalise the Global Partnership for SD

    Link
    UN - Agenda 2030 - "Sustainable Development" PART 1 OF 2 In 2015 the leaders of 193 countries signed their population up to Agenda 2030 What is Sustainable Development (SD)? SD is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” Core Principles: Universality (all countries committed to whole Agenda regardless of any unique factors) Leaving No One Behind (all people will be included; “with unprecedented need for data to ensure this principle is met”) Interconnectedness and Indivisibility – no pick and mix approach to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – all to be followed Inclusiveness – the entire population must follow Multi Stakeholder Partnerships – establishment seen as essential to deliver all SDG’s Dimensions of the Agenda (the 5Ps) People, Prosperity, Planet, Partnership and Peace Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Used to focus on areas necessary to achieve SD Each SDG has 8-12 targets & 1-4 indicators of progress SDG'S: Goal 1: End poverty Goal 2: End hunger Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives Goal 4: Quality education Goal 5: Gender equality Goal 6: Water/sanitation for all Goal 7: Affordable clean energy for all Goal 8: Economic growth/full + productive employment Goal 9: Resilient infrastructure, sustainable industrialization/innovation Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient & sustainable Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption + production patterns Goal 13: Combat climate change Goal 14: Conserve/sustainably use oceans, seas & marine resources Goal 15: Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, forests, deserts & land Goal 16: Promote inclusive societies, access to justice + accountable institutions Goal 17: Strengthen/revitalise the Global Partnership for SD Link
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1244 Views
  • What the Sustainable Development Goals really mean for humanity

    -PART 2 OF 2

    1. Zero Poverty
    UBI's, Centralised Banking, IMF / World Bank, CBDC's

    2. Zero Hunger
    Fake Meat, GMO's, Eat Insects

    3. Good Health/Well-being
    Mass Injections, "Vaccine Passports" , Codex Alimentarius, Masks, State monitoring, Limit or eliminate access to natural remedies

    4. Good Education
    State controlled propaganda from birth. Ignorance of basic information to support independence from the system

    5. Gender Equality
    Transgenderism, Population Control, Breakdown of the family

    6. Clean Water and Sanitation
    State control of water supply and chemicals added (e.g. fluoride)

    7. Affordable and Clean Energy
    SMART grid, SMART metres, Peak Pricing, Electric Cars, raising gas/ energy prices, Green Taxes

    8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
    Mega-corporations, Crash Economies, Control of means of production , Destroy small businesses-PART 4

    9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
    Restrictions on travel,closure of airports, 15 min cities

    10. Reduce Inequality within and between countries
    Crash economies, CBDC'S, UBI

    11. Safe + Sustainable Human Settlements + Cities
    15 mins cities, ULEZ, Big Brother surveillance, Digital ID's, 5g

    12. Responsible Consumption and Production
    Limits on consumption (including via CBDC's), Taxes

    13. Stop Climate Change
    Climate Lockdowns, carbon taxes, control via CBDC'S, control on travel

    14. Sustainable Use of Life Below Water
    Control of oceans + mineral rights, GMO'S

    15. Sustainable Use of Life On Land
    Control of land + mineral rights, GMO'S

    16. Peace, Justice, Inclusion and Strong Institutions
    Remove rights of individual, use of CBDC's, "Online Safety Bills", Hate Speech Laws, Social isolation

    17. Global Partnerships
    Remove national sovereignty, WEF, Civil Society, Corporatocracy, NGO's
    What the Sustainable Development Goals really mean for humanity -PART 2 OF 2 1. Zero Poverty UBI's, Centralised Banking, IMF / World Bank, CBDC's 2. Zero Hunger Fake Meat, GMO's, Eat Insects 3. Good Health/Well-being Mass Injections, "Vaccine Passports" , Codex Alimentarius, Masks, State monitoring, Limit or eliminate access to natural remedies 4. Good Education State controlled propaganda from birth. Ignorance of basic information to support independence from the system 5. Gender Equality Transgenderism, Population Control, Breakdown of the family 6. Clean Water and Sanitation State control of water supply and chemicals added (e.g. fluoride) 7. Affordable and Clean Energy SMART grid, SMART metres, Peak Pricing, Electric Cars, raising gas/ energy prices, Green Taxes 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth Mega-corporations, Crash Economies, Control of means of production , Destroy small businesses-PART 4 9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Restrictions on travel,closure of airports, 15 min cities 10. Reduce Inequality within and between countries Crash economies, CBDC'S, UBI 11. Safe + Sustainable Human Settlements + Cities 15 mins cities, ULEZ, Big Brother surveillance, Digital ID's, 5g 12. Responsible Consumption and Production Limits on consumption (including via CBDC's), Taxes 13. Stop Climate Change Climate Lockdowns, carbon taxes, control via CBDC'S, control on travel 14. Sustainable Use of Life Below Water Control of oceans + mineral rights, GMO'S 15. Sustainable Use of Life On Land Control of land + mineral rights, GMO'S 16. Peace, Justice, Inclusion and Strong Institutions Remove rights of individual, use of CBDC's, "Online Safety Bills", Hate Speech Laws, Social isolation 17. Global Partnerships Remove national sovereignty, WEF, Civil Society, Corporatocracy, NGO's
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1906 Views
  • 12 Israeli sensor technologies that will rock your world
    No more canaries in mines: Today’s sensors provide key information on everything from digital health to airport safety.

    By Brian Blum
    Sensors translate physical phenomena to a measurable signal. Photo courtesy of Consumer Physics/SCiO
    Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health.

    “A sensor is anything that translates a physical phenomenon to a measurable signal or other information. For example, in the past they used canaries as sensors for poisonous gas in mines,” explains Amichai Yifrach, an Israeli expert in military and civilian sensor development and currently the CTO of ag-tech startup Flux.

    “Using that definition, Israel is on the cutting edge of technology in all aspects of sensors,” he tells ISRAEL21c. “A lot of it is related to our capabilities in sensing things that others cannot, especially in relation to border security and airport control.”

    Historically, Israel’s edge in sensor technology comes from defense needs and much of the sector is still focused on military applications, with companies such as Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Seraphim Optronics in the lead.

    YOU CAN GET ISRAEL21c NEWS DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX.

    But as in many other fields, knowhow from the military gave a huge boost to Israel’s civilian sensor industry. “On the consumer side, we’re strong in image processing and algorithms. We have very good chemists, too,” says Yifrach.

    “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar,” Yifrach predicts. “Processes that follow chemical or physical properties need sensing to deduct valuable information for future quality or efficiency of the process. It all comes down to monitoring and controlling processes for quality.”

    ISRAEL21c chose a dozen Israeli sensor pioneers to illustrate the country’s strength in this powerful sector.

    Sensifree
    Sensifree specializes in low-power, contact-free, electromagnetic sensors that accurately collect a range of continuous biometric data without the need to touch the human body. Its first product, a contactless heartrate sensor for wearable devices such as watches, fitness trackers and smart clothing, will be followed by a cuff-free blood-pressure sensor.

    Based in California with R&D in Petah Tikva, Sensifree recently won $5 million in Series A financing, bringing its total funding since launching its revolutionary RF-based biometric sensor technology to $7 million.

    MS Technologies
    Based in Herzliya Pituah, MS Tech designs and manufactures nanotechnology detection and diagnostic sensors. Major airlines use its hand-held, non-radioactive explosives and narcotics detectors for carry-on baggage inspection, air-cargo screening and passenger security checks in several airports. Other industries that use MS Tech sensor technologies include food safety and product inspection, biomedical diagnostics, fire and smoke detection, water and air monitoring and aerospace.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4Q4SIYmRs

    ContinUse Biometrics
    ContinUse of Tel Aviv received a strategic investment from the multinational corporation Tyco to develop nanotechnology sensors that will be embedded into a range of construction and smart-home solutions.

    ContinUse Biometrics’ biometric no-contact sensor — based on technology developed over a decade by Bar-Ilan and Valencia universities — can detect heartbeat, blood pressure, breathing pace, glucose level, oxygen saturation and alcohol levels in the blood of a fully dressed person without touching the person. This data can be used to authenticate identity and manage access for security and smart-home applications, workplaces and sensitive facilities.

    Vayyar
    Vayyar sensors could make every cellphone or tablet a full 3D imaging system. Based in Yehud, Vayyar uses low-power radio transmissions to scan objects in a fraction of a second and create an enhanced imaging experience. One of the applications is better detection of irregularities in an object being examined, for example to detect tumors on mammograms or bacteria in milk bottling. The company recently won the Fast Pitch Contest sponsored by the Global Electronics Industry Association in Tel Aviv.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjUK-teB8o

    Elfi-Tech
    Elfi-Tech of Rehovot has introduced several sensor products for noninvasive measurements of physiological and blood parameters for use in fitness, wellness and first-line diagnostics apps. Its proprietary mDLS sensor module was integrated into Samsung’s Simband wearable open platform, and now the company is collaborating with pharma and medical-device industry to integrate mDLS into patient-monitoring devices. Elfi-Tech also is working with companies in the big-data analytics space on its new Data Logger device, which collects and analyzes mass amounts of cardiovascular health data from a single wearable.



    Accurate Sensors Technologies
    Started in 1994 as 3T, Accurate Sensors Technologies manufactures no-contact temperature-measurement solutions for extreme conditions, such as digital infrared thermometers. Headquartered in Misgav, the company also makes plug-and-play pyrometers — instruments for measuring high temperatures in furnaces and kilns – for the aluminum industry.



    Neteera Technologies
    Founded in January 2015 in partnership with Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Neteera is developing novel Terahertz imaging and sensing devices, of unprecedented resolution, size, cost-effectiveness and reliability.

    Neteera’s technology is revolutionary as it allows for multiple applications such as all-weather and night imaging for automotive and surveillance applications; weapons, explosives and contraband detection; medical imaging; manufacturing and quality control; monitoring of human physiological and biometric indicators and more.

    Occipital
    Occipital’s Structure Sensor is touted as the world’s first 3D sensor for mobile devices, adding 3D scanning, large-scale reconstruction and augmented-reality (AR) capabilities to new or existing iOS devices.

    Named a Popular Science “Best of What’s New” gadget for 2013, and recognized with a 2014 CES Innovations award, the Structure Sensor hardware platform gives developers the ability to easily create applications such as 3D mapping of indoor spaces, AR games, body scanning for fitness tracking and virtual clothes fitting, and 3D object scanning for easy 3D content creation.

    Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy
    Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy
    Consumer Physics
    Consumer Physics’ soon-to-be-released SCiO device uses optical sensors to read the chemical makeup of just about anything without touching it: for example, the fat in a piece of cake, the ripeness of fruit, the ingredients in medicines, the properties of cosmetics and precious stones.



    Nexense
    Ramat Gan-based Nexense makes a sensor system worn as a chest strap or wristwatch to monitor various physical parameters during sleep for the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea. The product, already approved in Europe and Israel, counts GE Healthcare among its investors and is expected to go public in 2017.

    EarlySense
    EarlySense uses an under-bed sensor system for continuous monitoring of patient vital signs and movement in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Without ever touching the patient, EarlySense helps the clinical team manage early detection of patient deterioration, fall prevention and prevention of bedsores.

    EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy
    EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy
    Saturas
    Saturas, founded in 2013 in the Trendlines incubator program, has developed a system of miniature implanted sensors and wireless transponders for determining the water status of fruit trees easily and inexpensively. According to CEO Anat Halgoa Solomon, the system (to be available in 2018) could save farmers up to 20 percent on water usage.

    Among many other sensor-based ag-tech companies in Israel are Phytech, AutoAgronom, CropX, GreenIQ and Flux.


    ISRAEL'S CIVILIAN BIOSENSOR INDUSTRY

    "Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health."

    “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar"

    https://www.israel21c.org/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that-will-rock-your-world/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that.html
    12 Israeli sensor technologies that will rock your world No more canaries in mines: Today’s sensors provide key information on everything from digital health to airport safety. By Brian Blum Sensors translate physical phenomena to a measurable signal. Photo courtesy of Consumer Physics/SCiO Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health. “A sensor is anything that translates a physical phenomenon to a measurable signal or other information. For example, in the past they used canaries as sensors for poisonous gas in mines,” explains Amichai Yifrach, an Israeli expert in military and civilian sensor development and currently the CTO of ag-tech startup Flux. “Using that definition, Israel is on the cutting edge of technology in all aspects of sensors,” he tells ISRAEL21c. “A lot of it is related to our capabilities in sensing things that others cannot, especially in relation to border security and airport control.” Historically, Israel’s edge in sensor technology comes from defense needs and much of the sector is still focused on military applications, with companies such as Elbit Systems, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Seraphim Optronics in the lead. YOU CAN GET ISRAEL21c NEWS DELIVERED STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX. But as in many other fields, knowhow from the military gave a huge boost to Israel’s civilian sensor industry. “On the consumer side, we’re strong in image processing and algorithms. We have very good chemists, too,” says Yifrach. “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar,” Yifrach predicts. “Processes that follow chemical or physical properties need sensing to deduct valuable information for future quality or efficiency of the process. It all comes down to monitoring and controlling processes for quality.” ISRAEL21c chose a dozen Israeli sensor pioneers to illustrate the country’s strength in this powerful sector. Sensifree Sensifree specializes in low-power, contact-free, electromagnetic sensors that accurately collect a range of continuous biometric data without the need to touch the human body. Its first product, a contactless heartrate sensor for wearable devices such as watches, fitness trackers and smart clothing, will be followed by a cuff-free blood-pressure sensor. Based in California with R&D in Petah Tikva, Sensifree recently won $5 million in Series A financing, bringing its total funding since launching its revolutionary RF-based biometric sensor technology to $7 million. MS Technologies Based in Herzliya Pituah, MS Tech designs and manufactures nanotechnology detection and diagnostic sensors. Major airlines use its hand-held, non-radioactive explosives and narcotics detectors for carry-on baggage inspection, air-cargo screening and passenger security checks in several airports. Other industries that use MS Tech sensor technologies include food safety and product inspection, biomedical diagnostics, fire and smoke detection, water and air monitoring and aerospace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4Q4SIYmRs ContinUse Biometrics ContinUse of Tel Aviv received a strategic investment from the multinational corporation Tyco to develop nanotechnology sensors that will be embedded into a range of construction and smart-home solutions. ContinUse Biometrics’ biometric no-contact sensor — based on technology developed over a decade by Bar-Ilan and Valencia universities — can detect heartbeat, blood pressure, breathing pace, glucose level, oxygen saturation and alcohol levels in the blood of a fully dressed person without touching the person. This data can be used to authenticate identity and manage access for security and smart-home applications, workplaces and sensitive facilities. Vayyar Vayyar sensors could make every cellphone or tablet a full 3D imaging system. Based in Yehud, Vayyar uses low-power radio transmissions to scan objects in a fraction of a second and create an enhanced imaging experience. One of the applications is better detection of irregularities in an object being examined, for example to detect tumors on mammograms or bacteria in milk bottling. The company recently won the Fast Pitch Contest sponsored by the Global Electronics Industry Association in Tel Aviv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjUK-teB8o Elfi-Tech Elfi-Tech of Rehovot has introduced several sensor products for noninvasive measurements of physiological and blood parameters for use in fitness, wellness and first-line diagnostics apps. Its proprietary mDLS sensor module was integrated into Samsung’s Simband wearable open platform, and now the company is collaborating with pharma and medical-device industry to integrate mDLS into patient-monitoring devices. Elfi-Tech also is working with companies in the big-data analytics space on its new Data Logger device, which collects and analyzes mass amounts of cardiovascular health data from a single wearable. Accurate Sensors Technologies Started in 1994 as 3T, Accurate Sensors Technologies manufactures no-contact temperature-measurement solutions for extreme conditions, such as digital infrared thermometers. Headquartered in Misgav, the company also makes plug-and-play pyrometers — instruments for measuring high temperatures in furnaces and kilns – for the aluminum industry. Neteera Technologies Founded in January 2015 in partnership with Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Neteera is developing novel Terahertz imaging and sensing devices, of unprecedented resolution, size, cost-effectiveness and reliability. Neteera’s technology is revolutionary as it allows for multiple applications such as all-weather and night imaging for automotive and surveillance applications; weapons, explosives and contraband detection; medical imaging; manufacturing and quality control; monitoring of human physiological and biometric indicators and more. Occipital Occipital’s Structure Sensor is touted as the world’s first 3D sensor for mobile devices, adding 3D scanning, large-scale reconstruction and augmented-reality (AR) capabilities to new or existing iOS devices. Named a Popular Science “Best of What’s New” gadget for 2013, and recognized with a 2014 CES Innovations award, the Structure Sensor hardware platform gives developers the ability to easily create applications such as 3D mapping of indoor spaces, AR games, body scanning for fitness tracking and virtual clothes fitting, and 3D object scanning for easy 3D content creation. Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy Occipital’s Structure Sensor can be used for object and body scans. Photo: courtesy Consumer Physics Consumer Physics’ soon-to-be-released SCiO device uses optical sensors to read the chemical makeup of just about anything without touching it: for example, the fat in a piece of cake, the ripeness of fruit, the ingredients in medicines, the properties of cosmetics and precious stones. Nexense Ramat Gan-based Nexense makes a sensor system worn as a chest strap or wristwatch to monitor various physical parameters during sleep for the treatment of snoring and sleep apnea. The product, already approved in Europe and Israel, counts GE Healthcare among its investors and is expected to go public in 2017. EarlySense EarlySense uses an under-bed sensor system for continuous monitoring of patient vital signs and movement in hospitals and other healthcare settings. Without ever touching the patient, EarlySense helps the clinical team manage early detection of patient deterioration, fall prevention and prevention of bedsores. EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy EarlySense goes under the patient’s bed. Photo: courtesy Saturas Saturas, founded in 2013 in the Trendlines incubator program, has developed a system of miniature implanted sensors and wireless transponders for determining the water status of fruit trees easily and inexpensively. According to CEO Anat Halgoa Solomon, the system (to be available in 2018) could save farmers up to 20 percent on water usage. Among many other sensor-based ag-tech companies in Israel are Phytech, AutoAgronom, CropX, GreenIQ and Flux. ISRAEL'S CIVILIAN BIOSENSOR INDUSTRY "Sensors are the hidden brain in everything from precision agriculture to connected cars, home appliances to security systems, smart cities to digital health." “Sensors will be more and more important in water quality, air quality and even food quality, like for makers of wine, beer or balsamic vinegar" https://www.israel21c.org/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that-will-rock-your-world/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/12-israeli-sensor-technologies-that.html
    WWW.ISRAEL21C.ORG
    12 Israeli sensor technologies that will rock your world - ISRAEL21c
    No more canaries in mines: Today's sensors provide key information on everything from digital health to airport safety.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 7447 Views
  • There's also a ton of information from the IEC regarding international Standards surrounding Biodigital convergence.

    Quantum Dots are programmable graphene oxide nanoparticles which serve many functions, including biometric data harvesting (spying).

    The demons want to build their Smart Cities from this material!

    https://ambassadorlove.blog/2021/12/17/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors-the-israeli-state/


    Quantum Dots, DNA Barcoding, Nano-Razors & The Israeli State
    December 17, 2021 by Dr. Ariyana Love
    December 2, 2021
    By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND

    In my latest interview with Stew Peter’s, I brought evidence confirming that Dr. Andreas Noack, the good doctor who risked his life to warn humanity of the extreme dangers of the death jab, is in fact deceased.

    Days after Dr. Noack’s mysterious death, a video was leaked revealing Graphene Hydroxide nano-razors inside the Pfizer death jab, under Dark Field Microscopy. The sample is loaded with Graphene Hydroxide.

    You will see an individual Microsphere releasing it’s payload of nanoscale Graphene Hydroxide which looks exactly like razorblades when zoomed in on the individual shiny specs. See more images here.

    LEAKED FOOTAGE: GRAPHENE HYDROXIDE NANO-RAZORBLADES – DARK FIELD MICROSCOPY

    An English translation of this video can be found in the article entitled, Dr. Ariyana Discusses Nano-Biosensors/Nanorazors and Dr. Noack’s Death After He Located Graphene Hydroxide in the COVID Vaccine.

    MICROSPHERES & MICROBUBBLES

    Microbeads and Microspheres are listed as an active ingredient in the Pfizer death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are listed in the Moderna death jab patent.

    Microspheres and Microbubbles are micrometer size devices approximately equal in size to a red blood cell, according to the NIH. That’s about the width of a Human hair.


    Microbubbles and Microspheres (bottom right)
    Microspheres and Microbubbles are made from Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA). PLGA is a copolymer made from Graphene Oxide (GO). Graphene Oxide-PLGA nanofibers are used in a host of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved “therapeutic” devices. However, the ingredients of these devices are cytotoxic, meaning they destroy cells.

    Graphene Oxide PLGA Toxicity induces an inflammatory response and deadly cytokine storm reaction, according to animal studies. The FDA should be investigated for this.

    Microspheres are coated with gold nanoparticles. Microspheres are used for scaffolding, which is artificial tissue engineering inside the Human body. PubMed writes, “Scaffolds are materials that have been engineered to cause desirable cellular interactions to contribute to the formation of new functional tissues for medical purposes. Cells are often ‘seeded’ into these structures capable of supporting three-dimensional tissue formation.”

    This technology is being used for DNA-based tissue engineering and “scaffolding” of Humans, without their Informed Consent. See more scaffolding images from a Slovakian study of the death jab, here.

    Microbubbles contain one or more “viral vectors coding CRISPR-Cas-9 system“. It’s a “state-of-the-art” drug and chemical delivery method. They contain lab enhanced chimeric proteins of the messenger RNA/DNA. Microbubbles have a lipid and nickel-coated quartz substrate. They contain a drug and chemical payload in the outer, lipid-coating and another payload on the inside.

    Graphene Oxide Nanotubes enable Microbubbles to self-replicate via electrical pulse. They interlink by electrodes. Microbubbles were designed to break through the blood/brain barrier and deliver their drug and chemical payload into brain cells. Ultrasound is used to help Microbubbles breach the blood/brain barrier. Here’s a video animation of how microbubbles / microspheres work to deliver drugs into the brain.

    This gene delivery technology was funded and developed for the purpose of treating sick people, not healthy people. It was intended to be used as a treatment for cancer, not as a medical intervention for our healthy kids.

    The Microbubble and Microsphere devices carry drug and chemical payloads for controlled release of encapsulated DNA. It’s targeted drug delivery can be unloaded over an extended period of time. This is very important to understand. They can be formulated for “sustained release” and programmed to release it’s payload at a later date, over a period of days, weeks, months or years, as the Moderna patent specifies.


    Moderna patent US10703789B2 delayed drug release
    QUANTOM DOTS & MICROBEADS

    Atomic scale nanometer devices called Quantum Dots and Microbeads, are also components of the death jab weapons system. They are found in the Pfizer and Moderna patents.

    These nanoscale technological devices are 1000 times smaller than a micrometer. Quantum Dots have nothing to do with plastic particles, these are carbon based nanocrystals, 10-50 atoms thick, and made from Graphene.

    Quantom Dots are used for DNA barcoding of Humans using CRISPR-Cas-9 technology. They are super conductors made for bio-imaging and bio-tracking of Humans. They too were developed for “therapeutic” use, to eradicate cancers, not to enslave Humans.

    Quantum Dots are artificial, color based, bioluminescent marker genes. They use three colors taken from the enzymatic proteins of insects (Luciferase), glow worms and jellyfish. The chimeric proteins are being barcoded onto Human genes to make them trackable, programmable and encoded, so Human cells will light up, enabling the NWO oligarchs to monitor your every move.

    I discussed Quantum Dots and more with Stew Peters on December 9th, 2021.

    Dr. Ariyana Love on Stew Peters Show, Dec. 9, 2021
    Microbead patent US20110017493A1, verifies that Microbeads “carbon based” (made from Graphene) and Microbead patent ES2784361T3/en specifies that it’s used to create molecular barcodes in Humans.

    Thermo Ficher sells Microbeads and markets them as Dynabeads and SPIONs. See SPIONS here.

    THE ISRAELI STATE

    This technology was developed at the Hebrew University in occupied Jerusalem. The Quantum Dot patent WO201413562A1 is owned by Yissum, a Hebrew University company owned by the Israeli state and co-owned by Nanosys, a Silicon Valley based company. These two companies are sublicensing the technology, worldwide.

    Yissum business partners include Google, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, and many more, while Samsung has a partnership with Nanosys.

    Moderna’s patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer CEO is in bed with Israel. Moderna is partnered with Israel in medical maleficence.

    Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, wants every man, women and child injected with Moderna’s poison #DeathJab, including INFANTS!


    Is it clear to you now who it is that has the greatest vested interest in branding and enslaving Humans like cattle? The cloning of insect DNA (Luciferase) into Humans is called cross-species genomics. This is the process of manually adding DNA from insects into Humans by transfection, a process also known as cloning, in order to change the genetic makeup of cells. It works by deleting one or more gene from the Human host and encodes Human cells to express the new genetic trait of an insect. Is that what you want to become?


    BIOCHIP & HYDROGEL

    Dr. Pablo Campra mentioned that nano-biosensors are in the death jabs. They can be found in the DARPA patent US7427497B2/en which lists “T-shaped micro-fluidic Biochips”.


    Hydrogels contain the entire mRNA weapons system. They need us saturated with their cloning technology in order to succeed in genetically modifying Humans to the point of patent eligibility. They will do so by injections, masks, nasal swabs, hand sanitizer, aerial spraying, and any other means necessary to achieve their end goal.

    We are in fact being saturated with Graphene Oxide Hydrogels. They’re being inserted into our food, clothing, hair and make-up products, household cleaners, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, sanitary items, water supply, etc.

    Ethylene Oxide in masks and on PCR swabs, is in fact Graphene Oxide, Poly(ethylene oxide) Graphene Nanoribbons. The bad news is that Fauci and the NIH funded mRNA nanotechnology which is skin-penetrating and can be dispensed via aerial spraying, as reported by InfoWars. The good news is this weapons system can also be expelled through the skin, if you know how to properly detox. The key to protecting yourself from this biological attack is to boost your immune system and remain on a continued Protocol.

    PROTOCOL

    There is a special natural supplement that disables the operating system, kills the parasites, and removes Graphene and other metals, effectively expelling them from your body. This supplement increases endogenous glutathione by 800%, repairs damage to your cells and to your DNA, and turns genes on, according to scientific research. This medical breakthrough is being used now by doctors who are able to reverse the coagulation cascade in just minutes. You will find this supplement in my Protocol here.

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors.html
    There's also a ton of information from the IEC regarding international Standards surrounding Biodigital convergence. Quantum Dots are programmable graphene oxide nanoparticles which serve many functions, including biometric data harvesting (spying). The demons want to build their Smart Cities from this material! https://ambassadorlove.blog/2021/12/17/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors-the-israeli-state/ Quantum Dots, DNA Barcoding, Nano-Razors & The Israeli State December 17, 2021 by Dr. Ariyana Love December 2, 2021 By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND In my latest interview with Stew Peter’s, I brought evidence confirming that Dr. Andreas Noack, the good doctor who risked his life to warn humanity of the extreme dangers of the death jab, is in fact deceased. Days after Dr. Noack’s mysterious death, a video was leaked revealing Graphene Hydroxide nano-razors inside the Pfizer death jab, under Dark Field Microscopy. The sample is loaded with Graphene Hydroxide. You will see an individual Microsphere releasing it’s payload of nanoscale Graphene Hydroxide which looks exactly like razorblades when zoomed in on the individual shiny specs. See more images here. LEAKED FOOTAGE: GRAPHENE HYDROXIDE NANO-RAZORBLADES – DARK FIELD MICROSCOPY An English translation of this video can be found in the article entitled, Dr. Ariyana Discusses Nano-Biosensors/Nanorazors and Dr. Noack’s Death After He Located Graphene Hydroxide in the COVID Vaccine. MICROSPHERES & MICROBUBBLES Microbeads and Microspheres are listed as an active ingredient in the Pfizer death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are listed in the Moderna death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are micrometer size devices approximately equal in size to a red blood cell, according to the NIH. That’s about the width of a Human hair. Microbubbles and Microspheres (bottom right) Microspheres and Microbubbles are made from Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA). PLGA is a copolymer made from Graphene Oxide (GO). Graphene Oxide-PLGA nanofibers are used in a host of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved “therapeutic” devices. However, the ingredients of these devices are cytotoxic, meaning they destroy cells. Graphene Oxide PLGA Toxicity induces an inflammatory response and deadly cytokine storm reaction, according to animal studies. The FDA should be investigated for this. Microspheres are coated with gold nanoparticles. Microspheres are used for scaffolding, which is artificial tissue engineering inside the Human body. PubMed writes, “Scaffolds are materials that have been engineered to cause desirable cellular interactions to contribute to the formation of new functional tissues for medical purposes. Cells are often ‘seeded’ into these structures capable of supporting three-dimensional tissue formation.” This technology is being used for DNA-based tissue engineering and “scaffolding” of Humans, without their Informed Consent. See more scaffolding images from a Slovakian study of the death jab, here. Microbubbles contain one or more “viral vectors coding CRISPR-Cas-9 system“. It’s a “state-of-the-art” drug and chemical delivery method. They contain lab enhanced chimeric proteins of the messenger RNA/DNA. Microbubbles have a lipid and nickel-coated quartz substrate. They contain a drug and chemical payload in the outer, lipid-coating and another payload on the inside. Graphene Oxide Nanotubes enable Microbubbles to self-replicate via electrical pulse. They interlink by electrodes. Microbubbles were designed to break through the blood/brain barrier and deliver their drug and chemical payload into brain cells. Ultrasound is used to help Microbubbles breach the blood/brain barrier. Here’s a video animation of how microbubbles / microspheres work to deliver drugs into the brain. This gene delivery technology was funded and developed for the purpose of treating sick people, not healthy people. It was intended to be used as a treatment for cancer, not as a medical intervention for our healthy kids. The Microbubble and Microsphere devices carry drug and chemical payloads for controlled release of encapsulated DNA. It’s targeted drug delivery can be unloaded over an extended period of time. This is very important to understand. They can be formulated for “sustained release” and programmed to release it’s payload at a later date, over a period of days, weeks, months or years, as the Moderna patent specifies. Moderna patent US10703789B2 delayed drug release QUANTOM DOTS & MICROBEADS Atomic scale nanometer devices called Quantum Dots and Microbeads, are also components of the death jab weapons system. They are found in the Pfizer and Moderna patents. These nanoscale technological devices are 1000 times smaller than a micrometer. Quantum Dots have nothing to do with plastic particles, these are carbon based nanocrystals, 10-50 atoms thick, and made from Graphene. Quantom Dots are used for DNA barcoding of Humans using CRISPR-Cas-9 technology. They are super conductors made for bio-imaging and bio-tracking of Humans. They too were developed for “therapeutic” use, to eradicate cancers, not to enslave Humans. Quantum Dots are artificial, color based, bioluminescent marker genes. They use three colors taken from the enzymatic proteins of insects (Luciferase), glow worms and jellyfish. The chimeric proteins are being barcoded onto Human genes to make them trackable, programmable and encoded, so Human cells will light up, enabling the NWO oligarchs to monitor your every move. I discussed Quantum Dots and more with Stew Peters on December 9th, 2021. Dr. Ariyana Love on Stew Peters Show, Dec. 9, 2021 Microbead patent US20110017493A1, verifies that Microbeads “carbon based” (made from Graphene) and Microbead patent ES2784361T3/en specifies that it’s used to create molecular barcodes in Humans. Thermo Ficher sells Microbeads and markets them as Dynabeads and SPIONs. See SPIONS here. THE ISRAELI STATE This technology was developed at the Hebrew University in occupied Jerusalem. The Quantum Dot patent WO201413562A1 is owned by Yissum, a Hebrew University company owned by the Israeli state and co-owned by Nanosys, a Silicon Valley based company. These two companies are sublicensing the technology, worldwide. Yissum business partners include Google, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, and many more, while Samsung has a partnership with Nanosys. Moderna’s patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer CEO is in bed with Israel. Moderna is partnered with Israel in medical maleficence. Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, wants every man, women and child injected with Moderna’s poison #DeathJab, including INFANTS! Is it clear to you now who it is that has the greatest vested interest in branding and enslaving Humans like cattle? The cloning of insect DNA (Luciferase) into Humans is called cross-species genomics. This is the process of manually adding DNA from insects into Humans by transfection, a process also known as cloning, in order to change the genetic makeup of cells. It works by deleting one or more gene from the Human host and encodes Human cells to express the new genetic trait of an insect. Is that what you want to become? BIOCHIP & HYDROGEL Dr. Pablo Campra mentioned that nano-biosensors are in the death jabs. They can be found in the DARPA patent US7427497B2/en which lists “T-shaped micro-fluidic Biochips”. Hydrogels contain the entire mRNA weapons system. They need us saturated with their cloning technology in order to succeed in genetically modifying Humans to the point of patent eligibility. They will do so by injections, masks, nasal swabs, hand sanitizer, aerial spraying, and any other means necessary to achieve their end goal. We are in fact being saturated with Graphene Oxide Hydrogels. They’re being inserted into our food, clothing, hair and make-up products, household cleaners, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, sanitary items, water supply, etc. Ethylene Oxide in masks and on PCR swabs, is in fact Graphene Oxide, Poly(ethylene oxide) Graphene Nanoribbons. The bad news is that Fauci and the NIH funded mRNA nanotechnology which is skin-penetrating and can be dispensed via aerial spraying, as reported by InfoWars. The good news is this weapons system can also be expelled through the skin, if you know how to properly detox. The key to protecting yourself from this biological attack is to boost your immune system and remain on a continued Protocol. PROTOCOL There is a special natural supplement that disables the operating system, kills the parasites, and removes Graphene and other metals, effectively expelling them from your body. This supplement increases endogenous glutathione by 800%, repairs damage to your cells and to your DNA, and turns genes on, according to scientific research. This medical breakthrough is being used now by doctors who are able to reverse the coagulation cascade in just minutes. You will find this supplement in my Protocol here. https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6737 Views
  • Singaporeans stand firm in support for Palestine amidst police scrutiny
    Singapore for Palestine organizers assert their right to advocate for Palestine, amid police scrutiny. They emphasize their peaceful acts of solidarity and commitment to speaking up against injustices, despite facing investigations.

    Staff writer14 February 2024

    In the wake of investigations by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) into two events held on February 2nd, the organizers of “Singapore for Palestine” issued a powerful statement on Wednesday (14 Feb), emphasizing their commitment to advocating for Palestinian rights.

    The SPF’s probe is centred on potential violations of the Public Order Act amid heightened tensions due to the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has resulted in allegations of genocide committed by the Israel administration against the Palestinians.

    During one event, approximately 70 individuals marched to the Istana, carrying umbrellas adorned with watermelon motifs—a symbol of Palestinian resistance—to deliver letters to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.


    70 people peacefully walked to the Istana in an orderly fashion to deliver their letters to the Prime Minister. (Photo:Amrita Chandradas)
    This peaceful act of solidarity, which allegedly had police reports filed against it, has been scrutinized by the police for its potential to incite public disorder, especially given the sensitive location.

    Another event, a private gathering, saw expressions of support for Palestine, including calls to end Singapore’s military and diplomatic ties with Israel. The use of the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during this event has particularly drawn the SPF’s attention due to its contentious implications.

    The participants in the private event advocated for stopping the purchase of Israeli arms, ending partnerships with Israeli institutions, halting all diplomatic relations with Israel, ceasing participation in the US-led attacks in the Red Sea, and calling for an end to police investigations into peaceful expressions of support for Palestine.


    160 people of various racial and religious backgrounds squeezed together for the private event ‘Steadfast for Palestine’. (Photo: zack dilaroca)
    The organizing team of “Singapore for Palestine” has responded with fervor, underscoring their activities as expressions of “humanity and love” rather than threats to public order.

    “As citizens of Singapore, it is both our right and our moral responsibility to call on the Singapore state to stop fuelling Israel’s genocide in Palestine,” the organizers declared, challenging the SPF’s portrayal of their actions.

    They criticized the police for not acknowledging the widespread support for Palestine, including actions by students across major universities and the public wearing armbands in solidarity.

    “In their press release, the SPF failed to mention that on the same day, hundreds also wore armbands in the colors of the Palestinian flag, to show their solidarity. What’s more, apart from the actions we organized, around a hundred students across NTU, NUS, and SMU also organized events on their respective campuses to mourn the loss of Palestinian lives and express their commitment to a free Palestine.”


    In NTU, more than 40 students did a teach-in on Palestine.
    Highlighting the irony in the state’s actions, the organizers noted, “It is really difficult to accept that while the police required the cancellation of the public event we had planned on 2nd Feb – Show Up for Palestine – to promote peace in Palestine, they are allowing Israel to promote their weapons of mass murder at the Airshow next week.”

    “We are not intimidated by the SPF’s allegations. But it appears that the government is threatened by our umbrellas decorated beautifully with hand-drawn watermelons!” said the organizers in their statement.

    The team’s resolve remains unshaken, committed to continuing their advocacy: “We will not be silenced. As long as Palestine remains unfree, we will continue to act, speak, and show up for Palestine.”

    They draw attention to the grave situation in Gaza, particularly in Rafah, where over a million civilians face the threat of Israeli aggression. “We must not let Palestinians become extinct,” they implore, calling for global and local support for the Palestinian cause.

    In response to these developments, the SPF, supported by Minister Josephine Teo, has reiterated the importance of maintaining respectful discourse, stressing that Singapore’s laws against unauthorized public gatherings aim to preserve public order and inter-community harmony.

    The government maintains its stance on contributing to humanitarian efforts and seeking peaceful resolutions through international dialogue.

    The death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began on 7 October last year.

    On 26 January, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to limit deaths and damage but stopped short of demanding a ceasefire in the Palestinian territory. South Africa has accused Israel of genocide and requested the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, to impose interim measures as the case proceeds, including ordering Israel to halt its offensive, allowing Gaza residents access to aid, and taking “reasonable measures” to prevent genocide.

    Israel has denied committing genocide and asked the court to dismiss the case, which the panel of 17 judges refused to do. And despite the ruling, Israel has since stepped up its offensive on Gaza, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling for a ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million civilians are crammed into the city.

    Casualties in Gaza are expected to increase as Palestinians crammed into the city are trapped between Israel’s offensive in the north and Egypt’s border, which has been said not to allow passage.



    Singapore for Palestine organizers assert their right to advocate for Palestine, amid police scrutiny. They emphasize their peaceful acts of solidarity and commitment to speaking up against injustices, despite facing investigations.

    https://gutzy.asia/2024/02/14/singaporeans-stand-firm-in-support-for-palestine-amidst-police-scrutiny/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/singaporeans-stand-firm-in-support-for.html
    Singaporeans stand firm in support for Palestine amidst police scrutiny Singapore for Palestine organizers assert their right to advocate for Palestine, amid police scrutiny. They emphasize their peaceful acts of solidarity and commitment to speaking up against injustices, despite facing investigations. Staff writer14 February 2024 In the wake of investigations by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) into two events held on February 2nd, the organizers of “Singapore for Palestine” issued a powerful statement on Wednesday (14 Feb), emphasizing their commitment to advocating for Palestinian rights. The SPF’s probe is centred on potential violations of the Public Order Act amid heightened tensions due to the Israel-Hamas conflict, which has resulted in allegations of genocide committed by the Israel administration against the Palestinians. During one event, approximately 70 individuals marched to the Istana, carrying umbrellas adorned with watermelon motifs—a symbol of Palestinian resistance—to deliver letters to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. 70 people peacefully walked to the Istana in an orderly fashion to deliver their letters to the Prime Minister. (Photo:Amrita Chandradas) This peaceful act of solidarity, which allegedly had police reports filed against it, has been scrutinized by the police for its potential to incite public disorder, especially given the sensitive location. Another event, a private gathering, saw expressions of support for Palestine, including calls to end Singapore’s military and diplomatic ties with Israel. The use of the phrase “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during this event has particularly drawn the SPF’s attention due to its contentious implications. The participants in the private event advocated for stopping the purchase of Israeli arms, ending partnerships with Israeli institutions, halting all diplomatic relations with Israel, ceasing participation in the US-led attacks in the Red Sea, and calling for an end to police investigations into peaceful expressions of support for Palestine. 160 people of various racial and religious backgrounds squeezed together for the private event ‘Steadfast for Palestine’. (Photo: zack dilaroca) The organizing team of “Singapore for Palestine” has responded with fervor, underscoring their activities as expressions of “humanity and love” rather than threats to public order. “As citizens of Singapore, it is both our right and our moral responsibility to call on the Singapore state to stop fuelling Israel’s genocide in Palestine,” the organizers declared, challenging the SPF’s portrayal of their actions. They criticized the police for not acknowledging the widespread support for Palestine, including actions by students across major universities and the public wearing armbands in solidarity. “In their press release, the SPF failed to mention that on the same day, hundreds also wore armbands in the colors of the Palestinian flag, to show their solidarity. What’s more, apart from the actions we organized, around a hundred students across NTU, NUS, and SMU also organized events on their respective campuses to mourn the loss of Palestinian lives and express their commitment to a free Palestine.” In NTU, more than 40 students did a teach-in on Palestine. Highlighting the irony in the state’s actions, the organizers noted, “It is really difficult to accept that while the police required the cancellation of the public event we had planned on 2nd Feb – Show Up for Palestine – to promote peace in Palestine, they are allowing Israel to promote their weapons of mass murder at the Airshow next week.” “We are not intimidated by the SPF’s allegations. But it appears that the government is threatened by our umbrellas decorated beautifully with hand-drawn watermelons!” said the organizers in their statement. The team’s resolve remains unshaken, committed to continuing their advocacy: “We will not be silenced. As long as Palestine remains unfree, we will continue to act, speak, and show up for Palestine.” They draw attention to the grave situation in Gaza, particularly in Rafah, where over a million civilians face the threat of Israeli aggression. “We must not let Palestinians become extinct,” they implore, calling for global and local support for the Palestinian cause. In response to these developments, the SPF, supported by Minister Josephine Teo, has reiterated the importance of maintaining respectful discourse, stressing that Singapore’s laws against unauthorized public gatherings aim to preserve public order and inter-community harmony. The government maintains its stance on contributing to humanitarian efforts and seeking peaceful resolutions through international dialogue. The death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began on 7 October last year. On 26 January, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to limit deaths and damage but stopped short of demanding a ceasefire in the Palestinian territory. South Africa has accused Israel of genocide and requested the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, to impose interim measures as the case proceeds, including ordering Israel to halt its offensive, allowing Gaza residents access to aid, and taking “reasonable measures” to prevent genocide. Israel has denied committing genocide and asked the court to dismiss the case, which the panel of 17 judges refused to do. And despite the ruling, Israel has since stepped up its offensive on Gaza, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling for a ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million civilians are crammed into the city. Casualties in Gaza are expected to increase as Palestinians crammed into the city are trapped between Israel’s offensive in the north and Egypt’s border, which has been said not to allow passage. Singapore for Palestine organizers assert their right to advocate for Palestine, amid police scrutiny. They emphasize their peaceful acts of solidarity and commitment to speaking up against injustices, despite facing investigations. https://gutzy.asia/2024/02/14/singaporeans-stand-firm-in-support-for-palestine-amidst-police-scrutiny/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/singaporeans-stand-firm-in-support-for.html
    GUTZY.ASIA
    Singaporeans stand firm in support for Palestine amidst police scrutiny
    Singapore for Palestine organizers assert their right to advocate for Palestine, amid police scrutiny. They emphasize their peaceful acts of solidarity and commitment to speaking up against injustices, despite facing investigations.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 4534 Views
  • Singapore Police investigate two events amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza
    Singapore Police Force in a statement said it is probing two events on 2 Feb for Public Order Act breaches, urging lawful, respectful dialogue on Israel-Hamas conflict as death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded.

    Staff writer13 February 2024

    SINGAPORE: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) is currently investigating two events held on 2 February that may have breached the Public Order Act amidst the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and genocide in Gaza.

    In their statement on Tuesday (13 Feb), the SPF also emphasized the importance of maintaining respectful and responsible discussions concerning the conflict, highlighting the illegal nature of participating in public protests without the requisite permit.

    The first event under investigation saw approximately 70 individuals congregating along Orchard Road, proceeding towards the Istana with umbrellas adorned with watermelon imagery—a recognized symbol of Palestinian resistance.

    This march, potentially advocating for the political causes of other countries, has raised concerns over stirring tensions and leading to public disorder, particularly given the security sensitivity of the Istana area.

    A second incident involved a private gathering which was captured and shared online where a subject was seen live streaming publicly and chanting, “From the river to the sea”, and others chanting “, Palestine will be free”, in response.

    The participants in the private event called for stopping the purchase of Israeli arms, ending Singaporean partnerships with Israeli institutions, halting all diplomatic relations with Israel, ceasing participation in the US-led attacks in the Red Sea, and stopping police investigations into peaceful expressions of support for Palestine.

    SPF states, “The phrase “From the river to the sea” is associated with calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The use of such phrases can lead to racial tensions in our society, and may be an offence under Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code 1871. We must also not condone calls for violence.”

    The participants in the private event, made calls for the Singapore government

    Reflecting on these incidents, the SPF reiterated its stance from October 2023, alongside the National Parks Board, that applications for public events related to the Israel-Hamas conflict would be systematically rejected due to public safety and security concerns.

    The SPF’s statement further stressed the importance of not allowing international events to disrupt Singapore’s internal harmony, pointing out the “real risk” assemblies related to the Gaza situation pose to public order and inter-community relations.

    In line with this, the SPF has made it clear that no permits will be granted for gatherings that risk inciting disorder or advocate for foreign political causes.

    Additionally, SPF noted that unauthorized posting of materials such as stickers on properties remains a punishable offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

    In a supportive stance, Josephine Teo, Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for the Ministry of Home Affairs, echoed the police’s sentiments in a Facebook post.

    She reassured that the advisory is not aimed at stifling expression but rather at ensuring that public discourse does not infringe upon the law or threaten societal cohesion.

    Minister Teo also highlighted Singapore’s proactive stance on the conflict, noting the country’s contribution to humanitarian efforts and its call for an immediate ceasefire through international platforms.

    The death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began on 7 October last year.

    On 26 January, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to limit deaths and damage but stopped short of demanding a cease-fire in the Palestinian territory.

    South Africa has accused Israel of genocide and requested the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, to impose interim measures as the case proceeds. These requested measures include ordering Israel to halt its offensive, allowing Gaza residents access to aid, and taking “reasonable measures” to prevent genocide.

    Israel has denied committing genocide and asked the court to dismiss the case, which the panel of 17 judges refused to do.

    Casualties in Gaza are expected to increase as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls for a ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million civilians are crammed into the city, trapped between Isreal’s offensive in the north and Egypt’s border where it has been said that it would not allow passage.

    Gutzy has checked with the organisers of the events and understands that they have yet to be contacted by the police and that the President has yet respond to the letters that were sent on 2 February.


    Singapore Police Force in a statement said it is probing two events on 2 Feb for Public Order Act breaches, urging lawful, respectful dialogue on Israel-Hamas conflict as death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded.




    https://gutzy.asia/2024/02/13/singapore-police-investigate-two-events-amid-israels-genocide-in-gaza/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/singapore-police-investigate-two-events.html
    Singapore Police investigate two events amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza Singapore Police Force in a statement said it is probing two events on 2 Feb for Public Order Act breaches, urging lawful, respectful dialogue on Israel-Hamas conflict as death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded. Staff writer13 February 2024 SINGAPORE: The Singapore Police Force (SPF) is currently investigating two events held on 2 February that may have breached the Public Order Act amidst the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and genocide in Gaza. In their statement on Tuesday (13 Feb), the SPF also emphasized the importance of maintaining respectful and responsible discussions concerning the conflict, highlighting the illegal nature of participating in public protests without the requisite permit. The first event under investigation saw approximately 70 individuals congregating along Orchard Road, proceeding towards the Istana with umbrellas adorned with watermelon imagery—a recognized symbol of Palestinian resistance. This march, potentially advocating for the political causes of other countries, has raised concerns over stirring tensions and leading to public disorder, particularly given the security sensitivity of the Istana area. A second incident involved a private gathering which was captured and shared online where a subject was seen live streaming publicly and chanting, “From the river to the sea”, and others chanting “, Palestine will be free”, in response. The participants in the private event called for stopping the purchase of Israeli arms, ending Singaporean partnerships with Israeli institutions, halting all diplomatic relations with Israel, ceasing participation in the US-led attacks in the Red Sea, and stopping police investigations into peaceful expressions of support for Palestine. SPF states, “The phrase “From the river to the sea” is associated with calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The use of such phrases can lead to racial tensions in our society, and may be an offence under Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code 1871. We must also not condone calls for violence.” The participants in the private event, made calls for the Singapore government Reflecting on these incidents, the SPF reiterated its stance from October 2023, alongside the National Parks Board, that applications for public events related to the Israel-Hamas conflict would be systematically rejected due to public safety and security concerns. The SPF’s statement further stressed the importance of not allowing international events to disrupt Singapore’s internal harmony, pointing out the “real risk” assemblies related to the Gaza situation pose to public order and inter-community relations. In line with this, the SPF has made it clear that no permits will be granted for gatherings that risk inciting disorder or advocate for foreign political causes. Additionally, SPF noted that unauthorized posting of materials such as stickers on properties remains a punishable offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. In a supportive stance, Josephine Teo, Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for the Ministry of Home Affairs, echoed the police’s sentiments in a Facebook post. She reassured that the advisory is not aimed at stifling expression but rather at ensuring that public discourse does not infringe upon the law or threaten societal cohesion. Minister Teo also highlighted Singapore’s proactive stance on the conflict, noting the country’s contribution to humanitarian efforts and its call for an immediate ceasefire through international platforms. The death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded since the Israeli offensive on Gaza began on 7 October last year. On 26 January, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to limit deaths and damage but stopped short of demanding a cease-fire in the Palestinian territory. South Africa has accused Israel of genocide and requested the World Court in The Hague, Netherlands, to impose interim measures as the case proceeds. These requested measures include ordering Israel to halt its offensive, allowing Gaza residents access to aid, and taking “reasonable measures” to prevent genocide. Israel has denied committing genocide and asked the court to dismiss the case, which the panel of 17 judges refused to do. Casualties in Gaza are expected to increase as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls for a ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million civilians are crammed into the city, trapped between Isreal’s offensive in the north and Egypt’s border where it has been said that it would not allow passage. Gutzy has checked with the organisers of the events and understands that they have yet to be contacted by the police and that the President has yet respond to the letters that were sent on 2 February. Singapore Police Force in a statement said it is probing two events on 2 Feb for Public Order Act breaches, urging lawful, respectful dialogue on Israel-Hamas conflict as death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded. https://gutzy.asia/2024/02/13/singapore-police-investigate-two-events-amid-israels-genocide-in-gaza/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/singapore-police-investigate-two-events.html
    GUTZY.ASIA
    Singapore Police investigate two events amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza
    Singapore Police Force in a statement said it is probing two events on 2 Feb for Public Order Act breaches, urging lawful, respectful dialogue on Israel-Hamas conflict as death toll in the Gaza Strip has surpassed 28,000, with more than 67,600 Palestinians wounded.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4363 Views
  • https://www.kristenwelchwellness.com/p/a-partnership-to-strengthen-global
    https://www.kristenwelchwellness.com/p/a-partnership-to-strengthen-global
    WWW.KRISTENWELCHWELLNESS.COM
    A Partnership to Strengthen Global Disease Surveillance
    It is important to draw attention to this information. The last time the Controllers were doing table-top exercises in 2019 and laying out their processes for how the 2020 Plandemic was going to take place, many of us were not paying full attention or simply thought it was unlikely to happen. Now, many of us have become wide awake and we are all sharing clues and collaborating with one another in an effort to obtain relevant information for how things may play out again in the future.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 546 Views
  • The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges
    Joe Biden relies on advisors who view the world through the prism of the West’s civilizing mission to the “lesser breeds” of the earth to formulate his policies towards Israel and the Middle East.


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

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

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

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

    ***

    Joe Biden’s inner circle of strategists for the Middle East — Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk — have little understanding of the Muslim world and a deep animus towards Islamic resistance movements. They see Europe, the United States and Israel as involved in a clash of civilizations between the enlightened West and a barbaric Middle East. They believe that violence can bend Palestinians and other Arabs to their will. They champion the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. and Israeli military as the key to regional stability — an illusion that fuels the flames of regional war and perpetuates the genocide in Gaza.

    In short, these four men are grossly incompetent. They join the club of other clueless leaders, such as those who waltzed into the suicidal slaughter of World War One, waded into the quagmire of Vietnam or who orchestrated the series of recent military debacles in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They are endowed with the presumptive power vested in the Executive Branch to bypass Congress, to provide weapons to Israel and carry out military strikes in Yemen and Iraq. This inner circle of true believers dismiss the more nuanced and informed counsels in the State Department and the intelligence communities, who view the refusal of the Biden administration to pressure Israel to halt the ongoing genocide as ill-advised and dangerous.

    Biden has always been an ardent militarist — he was calling for war with Iraq five years before the U.S. invaded. He built his political career by catering to the distaste of the white middle class for the popular movements, including the anti-war and civil rights movements, that convulsed the country in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. He joined Southern segregationists to oppose bringing Black students into Whites-only schools. He opposed federal funding for abortions and supported a constitutional amendment allowing states to restrict abortions. He attacked President George H. W. Bush in 1989 for being too soft in the “war on drugs.” He was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill and a raft of other draconian laws that more than doubled the U.S. prison population, militarized the police and pushed through drug laws that saw people incarcerated for life without parole. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, the greatest betrayal of the working class since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. He has always been a strident defender of Israel, bragging that he did more fundraisers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than any other Senator.

    “As many of you heard me say before, were there no Israel, America would have to invent one. We’d have to invent one because… you protect our interests like we protect yours,” Biden said in 2015, to an audience that included the Israeli ambassador, at the 67th Annual Israeli Independence Day Celebration in Washington D.C. During the same speech he said, “The truth of the matter is we need you. The world needs you. Imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century if Israel were not sustained, vibrant and free.”

    The year before Biden gave a gushing eulogy for Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister and general who was implicated in massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese and others in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon — as well as Egyptian prisoners of war — going back to the 1950s. He described Sharon as “part of one of the most remarkable founding generations in the history not of this nation, but of any nation.”

    While repudiating Donald Trump and his administration, Biden has not reversed Trump’s abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama, or Trump’s sanctions against Iran. He has embraced Trump’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, including the rehabilitation of Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following the assassination of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2017 in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. He has not intervened to curb Israeli attacks on Palestinians and settlement expansion in the West Bank. He did not reverse Trump’s moving of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, although the embassy includes land Israel illegally colonized after invading the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.

    As a seven-term senator of Delaware, Biden received more financial support from pro-Israel donors than any other senator, since 1990. Biden retains this record despite the fact that his senatorial career ended in 2009, when he became Obama’s vice president. Biden explains his commitment to Israel as “personal” and “political.”

    He has parroted back Israeli propaganda — including fabrications about beheaded babies and widespread rape of Israeli women by Hamas fighters — and asked Congress to provide $14 billion in additional aid to Israel since the Oct. 7 attack. He has twice bypassed Congress to supply Israel with thousands of bombs and munitions, including at least 100 2,000-pound bombs, used in the scorched earth campaign in Gaza.

    Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 90,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It has destroyed or damaged over 60 percent of the housing. The “safe areas,” to which some 2 million Gazans were instructed to flee in southern Gaza, have been bombed, with thousands of casualties. Palestinians in Gaza now make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the U.N. Every person in Gaza is hungry. A quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water. Famine is imminent. The 335,000 children under the age of five are at high risk of malnutrition. Some 50,000 pregnant women lack healthcare and adequate nutrition.

    And it could all end if the U.S. chose to intervene.

    “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.,” retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate. “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.”

    Blinken was Biden’s principal foreign policy adviser when Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He, along with Biden, lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. When he was Obama’s deputy national security advisor, he advocated the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He opposed withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria. He worked on the disastrous Biden Plan to partition Iraq along ethnic lines.

    “Within the Obama White House, Blinken played an influential role in the imposition of sanctions against Russia over the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and subsequently led ultimately unsuccessful calls for the U.S. to arm Ukraine,” according to the Atlantic Council, NATO’s unofficial think tank.

    Image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X



    When Blinken landed in Israel following the attacks by Hamas and other resistance groups on Oct. 7, he announced at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

    “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.”

    He attempted, on Israel’s behalf, to lobby Arab leaders to accept the 2.3 million Palestinian refugees Israel intends to ethnically cleanse from Gaza, a request that evoked outrage among Arab leaders.

    Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, and McGurk, are consummate opportunists, Machiavellian bureaucrats who cater to the reigning centers of power, including the Israel lobby.

    Sullivan was the chief architect of Hillary Clinton’s Asia pivot. He backed the corporate and investor rights Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which was sold as helping the U.S. contain China. Trump ultimately killed the trade agreement in the face of mass opposition from the U.S. public. His focus is thwarting a rising China, including through the expansion of the U.S. military.

    While not focused on the Middle East, Sullivan is a foreign policy hawk who has a knee jerk embrace of force to shape the world to U.S. demands. He embraces military Keynesianism, arguing that massive government spending on the weapons industry benefits the domestic economy.

    In a 7,000-word essay for Foreign Affairs magazine published five days before the Oct. 7 attacks, which left some 1,200 Israelis dead, Sullivan exposed his lack of understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East.



    Screenshot from The New York Times

    “Although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges,” he writes in the original version of the essay, “the region is quieter than it has been for decades,” adding that in the face of “serious” frictions, “we have de-escalated crises in Gaza.”

    Sullivan ignores Palestinian aspirations and Washington’s rhetorical backing for a two-state solution in the article, hastily rewritten in the online version after the Oct. 7 attacks. He writes in his original piece:

    At a meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last year, the president set forth his policy for the Middle East in an address to the leaders of members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. His approach returns discipline to US policy. It emphasizes deterring aggression, de-escalating conflicts, and integrating the region through joint infrastructure projects and new partnerships, including between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

    McGurk, the deputy assistant to President Biden and the coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the White House National Security Council, was a chief architect of Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, which accelerated the bloodletting. He worked as a legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. He then became Trump’s anti-ISIS czar.

    He does not speak Arabic — none of the four men does — and came to Iraq with no knowledge of its history, peoples or culture. Nevertheless, he helped draft Iraq’s interim constitution and oversaw the legal transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Interim Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. McGurk was an early backer of Nouri al-Maliki, who was Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014. Al-Maliki built a Shi’ite-controlled sectarian state that deeply alienated Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In 2005, McGurk transferred to the National Security Council (NSC), where he served as director for Iraq, and later as special assistant to the president and senior director for Iraq and Afghanistan. He served on the NSC staff from 2005 to 2009. In 2015, he was appointed as Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. He was retained by Trump until his resignation in Dec. 2018.

    An article in April 2021 titled “Brett McGurk: A Hero of Our Times,” in New Lines Magazine by former BBC foreign correspondent Paul Wood, paints a scathing portrait of McGurk. Wood writes:

    A senior Western diplomat who served in Baghdad told me that McGurk had been an absolute disaster for Iraq. “He is a consummate operator in Washington, but I saw no sign that he was interested in Iraqis or Iraq as a place full of real people. It was simply a bureaucratic and political challenge for him.” One critic who was in Baghdad with McGurk called him Machiavelli reincarnated. “It’s intellect plus ambition plus the utter ruthlessness to rise no matter the cost.”

    [….]

    A U.S. diplomat who was in the embassy when McGurk arrived found his steady advance astonishing. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?”

    Even those who didn’t like McGurk had to admit that he had a formidable intellect — and was a hard worker. He was also a gifted writer, no surprise as he had clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His rise mirrored that of an Iraqi politician named Nouri al-Maliki, one careerist helping the other. That is McGurk’s tragedy — and Iraq’s.

    [….]

    McGurk’s critics say his lack of Arabic meant he missed the vicious, sectarian undertones of what al-Maliki was saying in meetings right from the start. Translators censored or failed to keep up. Like many Americans in Iraq, McGurk was deaf to what was happening around him.

    Al-Maliki was the consequence of two mistakes by the U.S. How much McGurk had to do with them remains in dispute. The first mistake was the “80 Percent Solution” for ruling Iraq. The Sunni Arabs were mounting a bloody insurgency, but they were just 20% of the population. The theory was that you could run Iraq with the Kurds and the Shiites. The second error was to identify the Shiites with hardline, religious parties backed by Iran. Al-Maliki, a member of the religious Da’wa Party, was the beneficiary of this.

    In a piece in HuffPost in May 2022 by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, titled “Biden’s Top Middle East Advisor ‘Torched the House and Showed Up With a Firehose,’” McGurk is described by a colleague, who asked not to be named, as “the most talented bureaucrat they’ve ever seen, with the worst foreign policy judgment they’ve ever seen.”

    McGurk, like others in the Biden administration, is bizarrely focused on what comes after Israel’s genocidal campaign, rather than trying to halt it. McGurk proposed denying humanitarian aid and refusing to implement a pause in the fighting in Gaza until all the Israeli hostages were freed. Biden and his three closest policy advisors have called for the Palestinian Authority — an Israeli puppet regime that is reviled by most Palestinians — to take control of Gaza once Israel finishes leveling it. They have called on Israel — since Oct. 7 — to take steps towards a two-state solution, a plan rejected in an humiliating public rebuke to the the Biden White House by Netanyahu.

    The Biden White House spends more time talking to the Israelis and Saudis, who are being lobbied to normalize relations with Israel and help rebuild Gaza, than the Palestinians, who are at best, an afterthought. It believes the key to ending Palestinian resistance is found in Riyadh, summed up in a top-secret document peddled by McGurk called the “Jerusalem-Jeddah Pact,” the HuffPost reported. It is unable or unwilling to curb Israel’s bloodlust, which included missile strikes in a residential neighborhood in Damascus, Syria, on Saturday that killed five military advisors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and a drone attack in South Lebanon on Sunday, which killed two senior members of Hezbollah. These Israeli provocations will not go unanswered, evidenced by the ballistic missiles and rockets launched on Sunday by militants in western Iraq that targeted U.S. personnel stationed at the al-Assad Airbase.

    The Alice-in-Wonderland idea that once the slaughter in Gaza ends a diplomatic pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the key to regional stability is stupefying. Israel’s genocide, and Washington’s complicity, is shredding U.S. credibility and influence, especially in the Global South and the Muslim world. It ensures another generation of enraged Palestinians — whose families have been obliterated and whose homes have been destroyed — seeking vengeance.

    The policies embraced by the Biden administration not only blithely ignore the realities in the Arab world, but the realities of an extremist Israeli state that, with Congress bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, couldn’t care less what the Biden White House dreams up. Israel has no intention of creating a viable Palestinian state. Its goal is the ethnic cleansing of the 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and the annexation of Gaza by Israel. And when Israel is done with Gaza, it will turn on the West Bank, where Israeli raids now occur on an almost nightly basis and where thousands have been arrested and detained without charge since Oct. 7.

    Those running the show in the Biden White House are chasing after rainbows. The march of folly led by these four blind mice perpetuates the cataclysmic suffering of the Palestinians, stokes a regional war and presages another tragic and self-defeating chapter in the two decades of U.S. military fiascos in the Middle East.

    *

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

    Featured image: Blood Brothers – by Mr. Fish via Chris Hedges

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/four-horsemen-gaza-apocalypse/5847199
    The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges Joe Biden relies on advisors who view the world through the prism of the West’s civilizing mission to the “lesser breeds” of the earth to formulate his policies towards Israel and the Middle East. All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth” *** Joe Biden’s inner circle of strategists for the Middle East — Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan and Brett McGurk — have little understanding of the Muslim world and a deep animus towards Islamic resistance movements. They see Europe, the United States and Israel as involved in a clash of civilizations between the enlightened West and a barbaric Middle East. They believe that violence can bend Palestinians and other Arabs to their will. They champion the overwhelming firepower of the U.S. and Israeli military as the key to regional stability — an illusion that fuels the flames of regional war and perpetuates the genocide in Gaza. In short, these four men are grossly incompetent. They join the club of other clueless leaders, such as those who waltzed into the suicidal slaughter of World War One, waded into the quagmire of Vietnam or who orchestrated the series of recent military debacles in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They are endowed with the presumptive power vested in the Executive Branch to bypass Congress, to provide weapons to Israel and carry out military strikes in Yemen and Iraq. This inner circle of true believers dismiss the more nuanced and informed counsels in the State Department and the intelligence communities, who view the refusal of the Biden administration to pressure Israel to halt the ongoing genocide as ill-advised and dangerous. Biden has always been an ardent militarist — he was calling for war with Iraq five years before the U.S. invaded. He built his political career by catering to the distaste of the white middle class for the popular movements, including the anti-war and civil rights movements, that convulsed the country in the 1960s and 1970s. He is a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. He joined Southern segregationists to oppose bringing Black students into Whites-only schools. He opposed federal funding for abortions and supported a constitutional amendment allowing states to restrict abortions. He attacked President George H. W. Bush in 1989 for being too soft in the “war on drugs.” He was one of the architects of the 1994 crime bill and a raft of other draconian laws that more than doubled the U.S. prison population, militarized the police and pushed through drug laws that saw people incarcerated for life without parole. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, the greatest betrayal of the working class since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. He has always been a strident defender of Israel, bragging that he did more fundraisers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) than any other Senator. “As many of you heard me say before, were there no Israel, America would have to invent one. We’d have to invent one because… you protect our interests like we protect yours,” Biden said in 2015, to an audience that included the Israeli ambassador, at the 67th Annual Israeli Independence Day Celebration in Washington D.C. During the same speech he said, “The truth of the matter is we need you. The world needs you. Imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century if Israel were not sustained, vibrant and free.” The year before Biden gave a gushing eulogy for Ariel Sharon, the former Israeli prime minister and general who was implicated in massacres of Palestinians, Lebanese and others in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon — as well as Egyptian prisoners of war — going back to the 1950s. He described Sharon as “part of one of the most remarkable founding generations in the history not of this nation, but of any nation.” While repudiating Donald Trump and his administration, Biden has not reversed Trump’s abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama, or Trump’s sanctions against Iran. He has embraced Trump’s close ties with Saudi Arabia, including the rehabilitation of Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman, following the assassination of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2017 in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul. He has not intervened to curb Israeli attacks on Palestinians and settlement expansion in the West Bank. He did not reverse Trump’s moving of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, although the embassy includes land Israel illegally colonized after invading the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. As a seven-term senator of Delaware, Biden received more financial support from pro-Israel donors than any other senator, since 1990. Biden retains this record despite the fact that his senatorial career ended in 2009, when he became Obama’s vice president. Biden explains his commitment to Israel as “personal” and “political.” He has parroted back Israeli propaganda — including fabrications about beheaded babies and widespread rape of Israeli women by Hamas fighters — and asked Congress to provide $14 billion in additional aid to Israel since the Oct. 7 attack. He has twice bypassed Congress to supply Israel with thousands of bombs and munitions, including at least 100 2,000-pound bombs, used in the scorched earth campaign in Gaza. Israel has killed or seriously wounded close to 90,000 Palestinians in Gaza, almost one in every 20 inhabitants. It has destroyed or damaged over 60 percent of the housing. The “safe areas,” to which some 2 million Gazans were instructed to flee in southern Gaza, have been bombed, with thousands of casualties. Palestinians in Gaza now make up 80 percent of all the people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, according to the U.N. Every person in Gaza is hungry. A quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water. Famine is imminent. The 335,000 children under the age of five are at high risk of malnutrition. Some 50,000 pregnant women lack healthcare and adequate nutrition. And it could all end if the U.S. chose to intervene. “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs, it’s all from the U.S.,” retired Israeli Major General Yitzhak Brick told the Jewish News Syndicate. “The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. You have no capability… Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” Blinken was Biden’s principal foreign policy adviser when Biden was the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. He, along with Biden, lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. When he was Obama’s deputy national security advisor, he advocated the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. He opposed withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria. He worked on the disastrous Biden Plan to partition Iraq along ethnic lines. “Within the Obama White House, Blinken played an influential role in the imposition of sanctions against Russia over the 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and subsequently led ultimately unsuccessful calls for the U.S. to arm Ukraine,” according to the Atlantic Council, NATO’s unofficial think tank. Image: US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv, Oct. 12, 2023. – Secretary Antony Blinken on X When Blinken landed in Israel following the attacks by Hamas and other resistance groups on Oct. 7, he announced at a press conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “I come before you not only as the United States Secretary of State, but also as a Jew.” He attempted, on Israel’s behalf, to lobby Arab leaders to accept the 2.3 million Palestinian refugees Israel intends to ethnically cleanse from Gaza, a request that evoked outrage among Arab leaders. Sullivan, Biden’s national security advisor, and McGurk, are consummate opportunists, Machiavellian bureaucrats who cater to the reigning centers of power, including the Israel lobby. Sullivan was the chief architect of Hillary Clinton’s Asia pivot. He backed the corporate and investor rights Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which was sold as helping the U.S. contain China. Trump ultimately killed the trade agreement in the face of mass opposition from the U.S. public. His focus is thwarting a rising China, including through the expansion of the U.S. military. While not focused on the Middle East, Sullivan is a foreign policy hawk who has a knee jerk embrace of force to shape the world to U.S. demands. He embraces military Keynesianism, arguing that massive government spending on the weapons industry benefits the domestic economy. In a 7,000-word essay for Foreign Affairs magazine published five days before the Oct. 7 attacks, which left some 1,200 Israelis dead, Sullivan exposed his lack of understanding of the dynamics of the Middle East. Screenshot from The New York Times “Although the Middle East remains beset with perennial challenges,” he writes in the original version of the essay, “the region is quieter than it has been for decades,” adding that in the face of “serious” frictions, “we have de-escalated crises in Gaza.” Sullivan ignores Palestinian aspirations and Washington’s rhetorical backing for a two-state solution in the article, hastily rewritten in the online version after the Oct. 7 attacks. He writes in his original piece: At a meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last year, the president set forth his policy for the Middle East in an address to the leaders of members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan. His approach returns discipline to US policy. It emphasizes deterring aggression, de-escalating conflicts, and integrating the region through joint infrastructure projects and new partnerships, including between Israel and its Arab neighbors. McGurk, the deputy assistant to President Biden and the coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the White House National Security Council, was a chief architect of Bush’s “surge” in Iraq, which accelerated the bloodletting. He worked as a legal advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority and the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad. He then became Trump’s anti-ISIS czar. He does not speak Arabic — none of the four men does — and came to Iraq with no knowledge of its history, peoples or culture. Nevertheless, he helped draft Iraq’s interim constitution and oversaw the legal transition from the Coalition Provisional Authority to an Interim Iraqi Government led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. McGurk was an early backer of Nouri al-Maliki, who was Iraq’s prime minister between 2006 and 2014. Al-Maliki built a Shi’ite-controlled sectarian state that deeply alienated Sunni Arabs and Kurds. In 2005, McGurk transferred to the National Security Council (NSC), where he served as director for Iraq, and later as special assistant to the president and senior director for Iraq and Afghanistan. He served on the NSC staff from 2005 to 2009. In 2015, he was appointed as Obama’s Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. He was retained by Trump until his resignation in Dec. 2018. An article in April 2021 titled “Brett McGurk: A Hero of Our Times,” in New Lines Magazine by former BBC foreign correspondent Paul Wood, paints a scathing portrait of McGurk. Wood writes: A senior Western diplomat who served in Baghdad told me that McGurk had been an absolute disaster for Iraq. “He is a consummate operator in Washington, but I saw no sign that he was interested in Iraqis or Iraq as a place full of real people. It was simply a bureaucratic and political challenge for him.” One critic who was in Baghdad with McGurk called him Machiavelli reincarnated. “It’s intellect plus ambition plus the utter ruthlessness to rise no matter the cost.” [….] A U.S. diplomat who was in the embassy when McGurk arrived found his steady advance astonishing. “Brett only meets people who speak English. … There are like four people in the government who speak English. And somehow he’s now the person who should decide the fate of Iraq? How did this happen?” Even those who didn’t like McGurk had to admit that he had a formidable intellect — and was a hard worker. He was also a gifted writer, no surprise as he had clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His rise mirrored that of an Iraqi politician named Nouri al-Maliki, one careerist helping the other. That is McGurk’s tragedy — and Iraq’s. [….] McGurk’s critics say his lack of Arabic meant he missed the vicious, sectarian undertones of what al-Maliki was saying in meetings right from the start. Translators censored or failed to keep up. Like many Americans in Iraq, McGurk was deaf to what was happening around him. Al-Maliki was the consequence of two mistakes by the U.S. How much McGurk had to do with them remains in dispute. The first mistake was the “80 Percent Solution” for ruling Iraq. The Sunni Arabs were mounting a bloody insurgency, but they were just 20% of the population. The theory was that you could run Iraq with the Kurds and the Shiites. The second error was to identify the Shiites with hardline, religious parties backed by Iran. Al-Maliki, a member of the religious Da’wa Party, was the beneficiary of this. In a piece in HuffPost in May 2022 by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, titled “Biden’s Top Middle East Advisor ‘Torched the House and Showed Up With a Firehose,’” McGurk is described by a colleague, who asked not to be named, as “the most talented bureaucrat they’ve ever seen, with the worst foreign policy judgment they’ve ever seen.” McGurk, like others in the Biden administration, is bizarrely focused on what comes after Israel’s genocidal campaign, rather than trying to halt it. McGurk proposed denying humanitarian aid and refusing to implement a pause in the fighting in Gaza until all the Israeli hostages were freed. Biden and his three closest policy advisors have called for the Palestinian Authority — an Israeli puppet regime that is reviled by most Palestinians — to take control of Gaza once Israel finishes leveling it. They have called on Israel — since Oct. 7 — to take steps towards a two-state solution, a plan rejected in an humiliating public rebuke to the the Biden White House by Netanyahu. The Biden White House spends more time talking to the Israelis and Saudis, who are being lobbied to normalize relations with Israel and help rebuild Gaza, than the Palestinians, who are at best, an afterthought. It believes the key to ending Palestinian resistance is found in Riyadh, summed up in a top-secret document peddled by McGurk called the “Jerusalem-Jeddah Pact,” the HuffPost reported. It is unable or unwilling to curb Israel’s bloodlust, which included missile strikes in a residential neighborhood in Damascus, Syria, on Saturday that killed five military advisors from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and a drone attack in South Lebanon on Sunday, which killed two senior members of Hezbollah. These Israeli provocations will not go unanswered, evidenced by the ballistic missiles and rockets launched on Sunday by militants in western Iraq that targeted U.S. personnel stationed at the al-Assad Airbase. The Alice-in-Wonderland idea that once the slaughter in Gaza ends a diplomatic pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia will be the key to regional stability is stupefying. Israel’s genocide, and Washington’s complicity, is shredding U.S. credibility and influence, especially in the Global South and the Muslim world. It ensures another generation of enraged Palestinians — whose families have been obliterated and whose homes have been destroyed — seeking vengeance. The policies embraced by the Biden administration not only blithely ignore the realities in the Arab world, but the realities of an extremist Israeli state that, with Congress bought and paid for by the Israel lobby, couldn’t care less what the Biden White House dreams up. Israel has no intention of creating a viable Palestinian state. Its goal is the ethnic cleansing of the 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza and the annexation of Gaza by Israel. And when Israel is done with Gaza, it will turn on the West Bank, where Israeli raids now occur on an almost nightly basis and where thousands have been arrested and detained without charge since Oct. 7. Those running the show in the Biden White House are chasing after rainbows. The march of folly led by these four blind mice perpetuates the cataclysmic suffering of the Palestinians, stokes a regional war and presages another tragic and self-defeating chapter in the two decades of U.S. military fiascos in the Middle East. * Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Featured image: Blood Brothers – by Mr. Fish via Chris Hedges https://www.globalresearch.ca/four-horsemen-gaza-apocalypse/5847199
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    The Four Horsemen of Gaza’s Apocalypse. Chris Hedges
    All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel …
    Like
    Love
    2
    1 Comments 1 Shares 12100 Views
  • Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise
    Rhoda WilsonJanuary 3, 2024
    The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes.

    Months before a pandemic was declared in 2020, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and CEO of Moderna Stéphane Bancel told his staff that there was going to be a pandemic and Moderna would need to manufacture a billion doses of vaccine the “next year,” being 2021.

    How did Bancel know?

    A recent article written by The Underdog may provide some insight which lays out his/her findings relating to Moderna infiltrating the USA and UK governments as well as academia.

    The Underdog is a non de plume for someone who self-describes as a citizen journalist and publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Daily Beagle’.

    In the USA, Moderna took control of the FDA and Operation Warp Speed, and influenced NIH and BARDA, The Underdog says. Adding that Moderna controls the UK government through Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

    As well as governments, The Underdog surmises that Moderna has compromised academics in universities in the USA and Canada.

    For previous articles we’ve published that relate to and complement The Underdog’s article, please see ‘Rishi Sunak, Thélème and Moderna’ and various other articles HERE.

    Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

    Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration of Politics

    By The Underdog

    Murder, They Wrote

    Let us clarify murderous: a peer-reviewed study found that myocarditis in under 40-year-old males was higher in those who had taken all vaccines, and those who had taken a second dose of mRNA-1273, the Moderna covid injection.

    It was so bad that Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine in young people, as noted in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”).

    As previously known, the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and their corrupt cohorts attempted to censor evidence that myocarditis has a fatality rate of 50% within 5 years. So it isn’t unreasonable to assert Moderna has in all likelihood murdered at least 50% of those with myocarditis caused by the Moderna injections; of which will include children.

    Like in an attempt to discourage people from getting the poisonous shots without declaring that they’re harmful and recalling them, Moderna recently jacked up the price of their injections to $130. A reminder Moderna produced injections that contained stainless steel contaminants.


    It cost only $2.85 to manufacture and despite this, the US government paid $15 to $26 a dose. Why?

    Moderna Have Infiltrated the Government

    Seems pretty incredulous, but no.

    Moderna Is Part of WEF

    Stéphane Bancel was “elected” 2009 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”).


    Bancel was founding chief executive officer for Moderna and joined Flagship Pioneering in 2013.

    Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna and CEO of Flagship Pioneering, “received a Technology Pioneer 2012 award from the World Economic Forum”.

    Noubar also “served as Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Chemicals, Advanced Materials and Biotechnology of the World Economic Forum as well as being a member of the Meta-Council on Emerging Technologies.”

    Moderna Took Control of Operation Warp Speed

    Moncef Slaoui, owning 82,508 Moderna shares on 21 February 2020, stepped down from Moderna, divested his stake, and went on to lead Operation Warp Speed. As it just so happened, the US government spent over $4 billion on Moderna, twice as much as any other pharmaceutical company:


    During this time of taking fat wads of government cash, Moderna also received heavy investment from hedge funds in September 2020.

    Moderna Influenced NIH, BARDA

    The NIH in December 2020 bragged how they worked with Moderna in a partnership, along with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Vaccine Research Centre to develop the myocarditis inducing mRNA-1273 injection:

    Factoring in that the NIH deleted evidence of the myocarditis fatality rate implicating firms such as Moderna and the NIH itself, this shouldn’t be surprising.

    Moderna ultimately got into a fight with NIH over mRNA patents, with Moderna insisting they did everything. Current NIH director Francis Collins remarked the NIH played “a major role in the development of the vaccine,” in which Moderna received approximately $10 billion in government funding.

    Moderna paid the NIH their bribe patent money, to the tune of $400 million, just under half a billion, but held dispute over another patent. To try to appease the NIH, Moderna offered co-ownership of the vaccine patent with NIH.

    Curiously, an NIH employee, Philip Leder, worked on mRNA research decades before NIH’s agreement with Moderna. They conveniently died in 2020.

    Moderna Took Control of the FDA


    Stephan Hahn
    Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner who insisted he’d fast-track the covid-19 injections, left the FDA to go join Flagship Pioneering after approving the injections. He claimed Donald Trump told him “to authorise a covid-19 vaccine or go.”


    Flagship Pioneering are a venture capital firm that financed and kickstarted Moderna. The CEO of Flagship Pioneering, Noubar Afeyan, also co-founded Moderna. So, they’re essentially one and the same.

    Moderna LLC was the successor in interest to Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2009 as Newco LS18, Inc. by Flagship Pioneering.

    SEC EDGAR filing on Moderna LLCnone
    One of the founding investors of Moderna, Bob Langer, also previously worked on the FDA’s advisory board according to his own biography, serving as both a member and later the chairman:

    It is likely Bob retained contacts within the FDA even after leaving.

    Moderna Control the UK Government

    This isn’t hyperbole. We wish it were.

    The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Flagship Pioneering:

    This includes a spin-off company called Quotient Therapeutics:

    The UK government also formed an unusually aggressive and expansive 10-year contract with Moderna, worth at least £1 billion for a “new vaccine centre” – despite the fact these are genetic modification injections.


    This was agreed during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as Prime Minister.

    Moderna de facto Control the Prime Minister

    The investment will benefit current unelected pharmaceutical bureaucrat Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (read as: Moderna have influence of the UK government).


    Unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
    Rishi was also formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (read as: controlled the UK government purse strings) back in 2020, and allocated even more funds to the vaccine industry during that time. He bragged how it was a “success.” For his bank account, we surmise.

    How will he benefit? Rishi Sunak co-founded a firm called Thélème Partners LLP (aka. Thélème) back in 2009, registered in the Cayman Islands, along with co-founder and former French Navy Patrick Degorce, after they previously met at The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCIF”). TCIF was run by billionaire Chris Hohn.


    Rishi Sunak appointed Thélème partner John Sheridan as an advisor to government during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Thélème started with an initial investment fund of £536m, and were early backers of Moderna. Thélème co-founder Degorce invested in Moderna over a decade ago, meaning their rise was also Rishi Sunak’s rise.

    Thélème are Moderna’s single largest hedge fund investor, despite Thélème cutting their exposure by 11%. On 30 September 2023, Thélème disclosed ownership of 6,897,612 shares of Moderna, Inc. (US:MRNA) valued at $712,454,343 USD, more than half a billion.

    The name Thélème is likely based upon the French ‘Abbaye de Thélème’, an idea invented by French monk Rabelais, who gives his vision of an “ideal and utopian abbey.”

    The “Thelemites of the Abbey” follow “do what thou wilt”. Occultist Aleister Crowley declared a so-called “Theleme religion” whose central belief was “do what thou wilt”, even remarking “There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.”

    Unsurprisingly, Moderna plant Rishi Sunak did whatever he wanted and declined to say that he did not profit from the Moderna injections. He claims to have left the firm in 2013 and that his finances are in a so-called “blind trust,” along with 10 other ministers. There’s no legal definition of a “blind trust” so this is pure theatre.


    Given he’s the original founder of Thélème, he no doubt has shares and investments and still stands to profit from Moderna’s success, explaining why he gave Flagship Pioneering favourable treatment and Moderna a 10-year contract on a plate. This is the same Rishi who tried to “break banks” during the 2008 collapse.

    On another note…

    Moderna Have Compromised Academia

    Bear in mind academic institutions are involved in peer-reviewed processes, clinical research and more, so this has wider, damning ramifications. Moderna were formed within the heart of academia.

    Moderna Have Control In MIT


    Noubar Afeyan
    Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was recently installed in MIT Corporation’s board of trustees.


    The purpose of the trust? (Emphasis added):

    […] to see that the Institute adheres to the purposes for which it was chartered and that its integrity and financial resources are preserved for future generations as well as for current purposes. […]

    “About the Corporation”, MIT Corporation pagenone
    Control of the finances. And integrity.

    During the founding period of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joined the likes of MIT Bob Langer. Langer, since investing in Moderna, has now become a billionaire as a result.

    MIT Mandates the Covid-19 Injection, That MIT Based Modern Just Happens to Sell

    Profitably for MIT-inspired Moderna, during Moderna’s rise, MIT adopted a vaccine mandate, one where MIT reported there were still covid-19 cases anyway and that they weren’t mild:

    They huffed the copium and tried to argue there were no Omicron-related hospitalisations (Omicron is deemed the mildest of the covid-19 set), but conveniently omitted Alpha, Delta, and the others, implying there were other variant hospitalisations (read as: The injections they mandated for profits, didn’t work).

    Noubar Afeyan and MIT’s Bob Langer are also joined by investor Derrick Rossi (Harvard), after they learn they can reprogram human cells and reverse them back into pluripotent stem cells based on Harvard Derrick Rossi’s research. Notice it involves using mRNA to change human cells (read as: Modify their DNA).

    Rossi is head of the Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Current Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel also studied at Harvard.

    Rossi approached Harvard faculty member Timothy Springer asking him to invest in Moderna, which he did so. In April 2021, Timothy Springer was declared a billionaire by Cord Magazine. Back patting their own, Timothy Springer went on to receive a Lasker award, and a Robert Koch prize.

    The Koch brothers also finances MIT Bob Langer’s lab:

    In a surprise to no-one, Harvard also mandated the injection from which they stand to profit.

    This included for Harvard staff, flushing out anyone critical of the financial abuses by the vaccine industry.


    Bearing in mind the majority of Moderna directed Operation Warp Speed financing went to Moderna, the majority of the injections that would have been available would have also been primarily Moderna, guaranteeing their selfish, harmful, murderous profit

    Remember: Those below the age of 40 are adversely affected by myocarditis, and the majority of students on campus would be below that age; 50% fatality rate within 5 years for myocarditis.

    University of Toronto, As Well – Maybe Even the Canadian Government?

    The Academia orgy was apparently not big enough, and the University of Toronto wanted some, giving Derrick Rossi an “honorary degree”.


    University of Toronto are particularly interesting because they’re one of a handful of “kingmaker universities” in Canada.

    When investigating Acuitas Therapeutics, The Daily Beagle remarked:

    The only University with more Canadian Prime Ministers is University of Toronto, with Arthur Meighen, W.L. Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, and Paul Martin.

    It is very likely a lot of ministers for the Canadian government also come from the University of Toronto. So, the University of Toronto’s corrupt love-in with Moderna implies Moderna also has influence over the Canadian government.

    And in surprise to no-one, the University of Toronto also anti-competitively mandated the emergency authorisation injections:


    You know, the same injections Health Canada admitted contained plasmid DNA, the same kind Moderna used in partnership with Aldevron.

    What is it with academic universities mandating the injections from which they stand to benefit financially?

    Moderna are in Bed with Multiple Major Pharmaceutical Companies

    To give you an idea how deep this shell game goes, did you know that AstraZeneca are one of the key initial investors in Moderna and a major shareholder? So it doesn’t matter to them if their AstraZeneca injection becomes the fall guy for mRNA shots – they profit either way!

    And guess what they focused on? Heart disease and cancer (any time you see the word ‘oncology’, think cancer).

    Moderna Clearly Expects a Lot of Cancer

    Moderna went batshit and agreed a lot of partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms and fired up a lot of oncology (cancer) related spin-offs.

    Even in their own timeline, they spun-off ‘Onkaido Therapeutics’ to research cancer, partnered with Merck to advocate “personalised” cancer vaccines, and then produced mRNA injections, mRNA-4157, for tumours.


    They also launched ‘Caperna LLC’, again focusing on personalised cancer vaccines.

    Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed with Pfizer


    Moderna love-in Flagship Pioneering got into bed with Pfizer to do a $100 million drug discovery jaunt in July 2023. What type of drugs, they mysteriously didn’t say. Pfizer said their breakthroughs would “change patients’ lives”. They didn’t say for the better.

    This isn’t forgetting that earlier in 2023 Pfizer bought out Seagan for a whopping $43 billion in order to develop cancer drugs.


    Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed With Novo Nordisk

    The target? Heart disease and “rare diseases” (it’s only “rare”):

    Established in 2022, after it was found the Moderna injections cause myocarditis. Convenient.

    The Daily Beagle Smells a Rat – Merck Again

    Despite being rightly lambasted for making a harmful, murderous product and taking a beating with stocks and shares, on about 12 December 2023, Moderna started to mysteriously climb, and The Daily Beagle smelled a rat.


    And a rat it was. On the 14 December Moderna and Merck bragged their little jaunt into personalised cancer vaccines – vaguely worded as “a powerful new cancer therapy” – was “in the works.” We wonder if it’s as “safe and effective” as the myocarditis inducing covid-19 injections.

    What a great way to profit. Introduce DNA with transfection agents that cause insertational mutagensis (read as: Cause foreign DNA to enter your DNA and cause cancer), then profit from the resulting spike in cancer cases.


    Cancer, Cancer Everywhere

    Moderna’s entire theme seems to be primarily cancer focused. Besides the partnerships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Aldevron, NIH and more, it turns out Moderna is even more focused on cancer (somehow).

    Take former FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, for example, the man who betrayed the American public for a cushy job at Flagship Pioneering:


    He specialises in oncology (cancer), having been part of the National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and American Society for Radiation Oncology. Conveniently this also means Moderna has influence over cancer research (read as: No investigating any Moderna-related causes of cancer).

    University of Texas Cancer Corruption

    In another tangled web of cancer-related corruption, MD Anderson Cancer Centre are owned by the Koch brothers. Koch financed the likes of Moderna’s Bob Langer’s lab and gave Moderna investor Timothy Springer a monetary award.

    MD Anderson Cancer Centre, were involved in controversy when the President, Ronald DePinho, was found to own stocks in Aveo Oncology, a company whose drugs University of Texas would be assessing in clinical trial, at none other than… the MD Anderson Cancer Centre.

    We bet it is exciting … for your bank account.

    Unsurprisingly, the corrupt University of Texas investigated itself and found itself innocent, using the meaningless term “blind trust” with zero transparency on the arrangement. University of Texas wheeled out the usual nonsense that financial conflicts of interest were somehow in the patients’ best interests.


    Surely they mean the best interests of the investors, University of Texas itself! And what safeguards? You kept the stocks and the clinical trial.

    Any Cure for The Cancer That Is Corruption?

    Apparently not.

    Even now, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is somehow selling off 40,000 shares a pop via automatic sells, without somehow reducing the total number of shares he holds (???):


    Apparently Moderna can just print itself as many shares for profit as it wants, on account of how many departments and institutions it controls.

    Oh, and to top it off, Moderna are even in bed with charities. Oxfam America (you know, of Oxfam child rapists fame) filed a SEC complaint that Moderna had committed fraud and misled investors (read as: Oxfam America is an investor in Moderna).

    Tip of the Iceberg

    Phew, that’s a lot to go over. No doubt there’s more, however we’ll be cutting it here for now as it is a lot to go over. It is surprising how much influence and control Moderna have consolidated in such a short space of time, and no doubt corruption is rife abounds elsewhere too.



    https://expose-news.com/2024/01/03/modernas-influence-over-the-us-and-uk
    Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise Rhoda WilsonJanuary 3, 2024 The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes. Months before a pandemic was declared in 2020, World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and CEO of Moderna Stéphane Bancel told his staff that there was going to be a pandemic and Moderna would need to manufacture a billion doses of vaccine the “next year,” being 2021. How did Bancel know? A recent article written by The Underdog may provide some insight which lays out his/her findings relating to Moderna infiltrating the USA and UK governments as well as academia. The Underdog is a non de plume for someone who self-describes as a citizen journalist and publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘The Daily Beagle’. In the USA, Moderna took control of the FDA and Operation Warp Speed, and influenced NIH and BARDA, The Underdog says. Adding that Moderna controls the UK government through Installed Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. As well as governments, The Underdog surmises that Moderna has compromised academics in universities in the USA and Canada. For previous articles we’ve published that relate to and complement The Underdog’s article, please see ‘Rishi Sunak, Thélème and Moderna’ and various other articles HERE. Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Murderous Moderna’s Infiltration of Politics By The Underdog Murder, They Wrote Let us clarify murderous: a peer-reviewed study found that myocarditis in under 40-year-old males was higher in those who had taken all vaccines, and those who had taken a second dose of mRNA-1273, the Moderna covid injection. It was so bad that Sweden, Norway, and Finland suspended the use of the Moderna vaccine in young people, as noted in the British Medical Journal (“BMJ”). As previously known, the US National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) and their corrupt cohorts attempted to censor evidence that myocarditis has a fatality rate of 50% within 5 years. So it isn’t unreasonable to assert Moderna has in all likelihood murdered at least 50% of those with myocarditis caused by the Moderna injections; of which will include children. Like in an attempt to discourage people from getting the poisonous shots without declaring that they’re harmful and recalling them, Moderna recently jacked up the price of their injections to $130. A reminder Moderna produced injections that contained stainless steel contaminants. It cost only $2.85 to manufacture and despite this, the US government paid $15 to $26 a dose. Why? Moderna Have Infiltrated the Government Seems pretty incredulous, but no. Moderna Is Part of WEF Stéphane Bancel was “elected” 2009 Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). Bancel was founding chief executive officer for Moderna and joined Flagship Pioneering in 2013. Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna and CEO of Flagship Pioneering, “received a Technology Pioneer 2012 award from the World Economic Forum”. Noubar also “served as Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Chemicals, Advanced Materials and Biotechnology of the World Economic Forum as well as being a member of the Meta-Council on Emerging Technologies.” Moderna Took Control of Operation Warp Speed Moncef Slaoui, owning 82,508 Moderna shares on 21 February 2020, stepped down from Moderna, divested his stake, and went on to lead Operation Warp Speed. As it just so happened, the US government spent over $4 billion on Moderna, twice as much as any other pharmaceutical company: During this time of taking fat wads of government cash, Moderna also received heavy investment from hedge funds in September 2020. Moderna Influenced NIH, BARDA The NIH in December 2020 bragged how they worked with Moderna in a partnership, along with BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) and NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) Vaccine Research Centre to develop the myocarditis inducing mRNA-1273 injection: Factoring in that the NIH deleted evidence of the myocarditis fatality rate implicating firms such as Moderna and the NIH itself, this shouldn’t be surprising. Moderna ultimately got into a fight with NIH over mRNA patents, with Moderna insisting they did everything. Current NIH director Francis Collins remarked the NIH played “a major role in the development of the vaccine,” in which Moderna received approximately $10 billion in government funding. Moderna paid the NIH their bribe patent money, to the tune of $400 million, just under half a billion, but held dispute over another patent. To try to appease the NIH, Moderna offered co-ownership of the vaccine patent with NIH. Curiously, an NIH employee, Philip Leder, worked on mRNA research decades before NIH’s agreement with Moderna. They conveniently died in 2020. Moderna Took Control of the FDA Stephan Hahn Stephen Hahn, former FDA Commissioner who insisted he’d fast-track the covid-19 injections, left the FDA to go join Flagship Pioneering after approving the injections. He claimed Donald Trump told him “to authorise a covid-19 vaccine or go.” Flagship Pioneering are a venture capital firm that financed and kickstarted Moderna. The CEO of Flagship Pioneering, Noubar Afeyan, also co-founded Moderna. So, they’re essentially one and the same. Moderna LLC was the successor in interest to Moderna Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation incorporated in 2009 as Newco LS18, Inc. by Flagship Pioneering. SEC EDGAR filing on Moderna LLCnone One of the founding investors of Moderna, Bob Langer, also previously worked on the FDA’s advisory board according to his own biography, serving as both a member and later the chairman: It is likely Bob retained contacts within the FDA even after leaving. Moderna Control the UK Government This isn’t hyperbole. We wish it were. The UK government signed a memorandum of understanding with Flagship Pioneering: This includes a spin-off company called Quotient Therapeutics: The UK government also formed an unusually aggressive and expansive 10-year contract with Moderna, worth at least £1 billion for a “new vaccine centre” – despite the fact these are genetic modification injections. This was agreed during Rishi Sunak’s tenure as Prime Minister. Moderna de facto Control the Prime Minister The investment will benefit current unelected pharmaceutical bureaucrat Rishi Sunak, who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (read as: Moderna have influence of the UK government). Unelected Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Rishi was also formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer (read as: controlled the UK government purse strings) back in 2020, and allocated even more funds to the vaccine industry during that time. He bragged how it was a “success.” For his bank account, we surmise. How will he benefit? Rishi Sunak co-founded a firm called Thélème Partners LLP (aka. Thélème) back in 2009, registered in the Cayman Islands, along with co-founder and former French Navy Patrick Degorce, after they previously met at The Children’s Investment Fund (“TCIF”). TCIF was run by billionaire Chris Hohn. Rishi Sunak appointed Thélème partner John Sheridan as an advisor to government during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Thélème started with an initial investment fund of £536m, and were early backers of Moderna. Thélème co-founder Degorce invested in Moderna over a decade ago, meaning their rise was also Rishi Sunak’s rise. Thélème are Moderna’s single largest hedge fund investor, despite Thélème cutting their exposure by 11%. On 30 September 2023, Thélème disclosed ownership of 6,897,612 shares of Moderna, Inc. (US:MRNA) valued at $712,454,343 USD, more than half a billion. The name Thélème is likely based upon the French ‘Abbaye de Thélème’, an idea invented by French monk Rabelais, who gives his vision of an “ideal and utopian abbey.” The “Thelemites of the Abbey” follow “do what thou wilt”. Occultist Aleister Crowley declared a so-called “Theleme religion” whose central belief was “do what thou wilt”, even remarking “There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.” Unsurprisingly, Moderna plant Rishi Sunak did whatever he wanted and declined to say that he did not profit from the Moderna injections. He claims to have left the firm in 2013 and that his finances are in a so-called “blind trust,” along with 10 other ministers. There’s no legal definition of a “blind trust” so this is pure theatre. Given he’s the original founder of Thélème, he no doubt has shares and investments and still stands to profit from Moderna’s success, explaining why he gave Flagship Pioneering favourable treatment and Moderna a 10-year contract on a plate. This is the same Rishi who tried to “break banks” during the 2008 collapse. On another note… Moderna Have Compromised Academia Bear in mind academic institutions are involved in peer-reviewed processes, clinical research and more, so this has wider, damning ramifications. Moderna were formed within the heart of academia. Moderna Have Control In MIT Noubar Afeyan Noubar Afeyan, CEO of Flagship Pioneering, studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). He was recently installed in MIT Corporation’s board of trustees. The purpose of the trust? (Emphasis added): […] to see that the Institute adheres to the purposes for which it was chartered and that its integrity and financial resources are preserved for future generations as well as for current purposes. […] “About the Corporation”, MIT Corporation pagenone Control of the finances. And integrity. During the founding period of Moderna, Noubar Afeyan joined the likes of MIT Bob Langer. Langer, since investing in Moderna, has now become a billionaire as a result. MIT Mandates the Covid-19 Injection, That MIT Based Modern Just Happens to Sell Profitably for MIT-inspired Moderna, during Moderna’s rise, MIT adopted a vaccine mandate, one where MIT reported there were still covid-19 cases anyway and that they weren’t mild: They huffed the copium and tried to argue there were no Omicron-related hospitalisations (Omicron is deemed the mildest of the covid-19 set), but conveniently omitted Alpha, Delta, and the others, implying there were other variant hospitalisations (read as: The injections they mandated for profits, didn’t work). Noubar Afeyan and MIT’s Bob Langer are also joined by investor Derrick Rossi (Harvard), after they learn they can reprogram human cells and reverse them back into pluripotent stem cells based on Harvard Derrick Rossi’s research. Notice it involves using mRNA to change human cells (read as: Modify their DNA). Rossi is head of the Harvard Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Current Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel also studied at Harvard. Rossi approached Harvard faculty member Timothy Springer asking him to invest in Moderna, which he did so. In April 2021, Timothy Springer was declared a billionaire by Cord Magazine. Back patting their own, Timothy Springer went on to receive a Lasker award, and a Robert Koch prize. The Koch brothers also finances MIT Bob Langer’s lab: In a surprise to no-one, Harvard also mandated the injection from which they stand to profit. This included for Harvard staff, flushing out anyone critical of the financial abuses by the vaccine industry. Bearing in mind the majority of Moderna directed Operation Warp Speed financing went to Moderna, the majority of the injections that would have been available would have also been primarily Moderna, guaranteeing their selfish, harmful, murderous profit Remember: Those below the age of 40 are adversely affected by myocarditis, and the majority of students on campus would be below that age; 50% fatality rate within 5 years for myocarditis. University of Toronto, As Well – Maybe Even the Canadian Government? The Academia orgy was apparently not big enough, and the University of Toronto wanted some, giving Derrick Rossi an “honorary degree”. University of Toronto are particularly interesting because they’re one of a handful of “kingmaker universities” in Canada. When investigating Acuitas Therapeutics, The Daily Beagle remarked: The only University with more Canadian Prime Ministers is University of Toronto, with Arthur Meighen, W.L. Mackenzie King, Lester B. Pearson, and Paul Martin. It is very likely a lot of ministers for the Canadian government also come from the University of Toronto. So, the University of Toronto’s corrupt love-in with Moderna implies Moderna also has influence over the Canadian government. And in surprise to no-one, the University of Toronto also anti-competitively mandated the emergency authorisation injections: You know, the same injections Health Canada admitted contained plasmid DNA, the same kind Moderna used in partnership with Aldevron. What is it with academic universities mandating the injections from which they stand to benefit financially? Moderna are in Bed with Multiple Major Pharmaceutical Companies To give you an idea how deep this shell game goes, did you know that AstraZeneca are one of the key initial investors in Moderna and a major shareholder? So it doesn’t matter to them if their AstraZeneca injection becomes the fall guy for mRNA shots – they profit either way! And guess what they focused on? Heart disease and cancer (any time you see the word ‘oncology’, think cancer). Moderna Clearly Expects a Lot of Cancer Moderna went batshit and agreed a lot of partnerships with major pharmaceutical firms and fired up a lot of oncology (cancer) related spin-offs. Even in their own timeline, they spun-off ‘Onkaido Therapeutics’ to research cancer, partnered with Merck to advocate “personalised” cancer vaccines, and then produced mRNA injections, mRNA-4157, for tumours. They also launched ‘Caperna LLC’, again focusing on personalised cancer vaccines. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed with Pfizer Moderna love-in Flagship Pioneering got into bed with Pfizer to do a $100 million drug discovery jaunt in July 2023. What type of drugs, they mysteriously didn’t say. Pfizer said their breakthroughs would “change patients’ lives”. They didn’t say for the better. This isn’t forgetting that earlier in 2023 Pfizer bought out Seagan for a whopping $43 billion in order to develop cancer drugs. Flagship Pioneering (Moderna) Gets into Bed With Novo Nordisk The target? Heart disease and “rare diseases” (it’s only “rare”): Established in 2022, after it was found the Moderna injections cause myocarditis. Convenient. The Daily Beagle Smells a Rat – Merck Again Despite being rightly lambasted for making a harmful, murderous product and taking a beating with stocks and shares, on about 12 December 2023, Moderna started to mysteriously climb, and The Daily Beagle smelled a rat. And a rat it was. On the 14 December Moderna and Merck bragged their little jaunt into personalised cancer vaccines – vaguely worded as “a powerful new cancer therapy” – was “in the works.” We wonder if it’s as “safe and effective” as the myocarditis inducing covid-19 injections. What a great way to profit. Introduce DNA with transfection agents that cause insertational mutagensis (read as: Cause foreign DNA to enter your DNA and cause cancer), then profit from the resulting spike in cancer cases. Cancer, Cancer Everywhere Moderna’s entire theme seems to be primarily cancer focused. Besides the partnerships with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Aldevron, NIH and more, it turns out Moderna is even more focused on cancer (somehow). Take former FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn, for example, the man who betrayed the American public for a cushy job at Flagship Pioneering: He specialises in oncology (cancer), having been part of the National Cancer Institute, American Association for Cancer Research, and American Society for Radiation Oncology. Conveniently this also means Moderna has influence over cancer research (read as: No investigating any Moderna-related causes of cancer). University of Texas Cancer Corruption In another tangled web of cancer-related corruption, MD Anderson Cancer Centre are owned by the Koch brothers. Koch financed the likes of Moderna’s Bob Langer’s lab and gave Moderna investor Timothy Springer a monetary award. MD Anderson Cancer Centre, were involved in controversy when the President, Ronald DePinho, was found to own stocks in Aveo Oncology, a company whose drugs University of Texas would be assessing in clinical trial, at none other than… the MD Anderson Cancer Centre. We bet it is exciting … for your bank account. Unsurprisingly, the corrupt University of Texas investigated itself and found itself innocent, using the meaningless term “blind trust” with zero transparency on the arrangement. University of Texas wheeled out the usual nonsense that financial conflicts of interest were somehow in the patients’ best interests. Surely they mean the best interests of the investors, University of Texas itself! And what safeguards? You kept the stocks and the clinical trial. Any Cure for The Cancer That Is Corruption? Apparently not. Even now, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel is somehow selling off 40,000 shares a pop via automatic sells, without somehow reducing the total number of shares he holds (???): Apparently Moderna can just print itself as many shares for profit as it wants, on account of how many departments and institutions it controls. Oh, and to top it off, Moderna are even in bed with charities. Oxfam America (you know, of Oxfam child rapists fame) filed a SEC complaint that Moderna had committed fraud and misled investors (read as: Oxfam America is an investor in Moderna). Tip of the Iceberg Phew, that’s a lot to go over. No doubt there’s more, however we’ll be cutting it here for now as it is a lot to go over. It is surprising how much influence and control Moderna have consolidated in such a short space of time, and no doubt corruption is rife abounds elsewhere too. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/03/modernas-influence-over-the-us-and-uk
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Moderna’s influence over the US and UK governments is more than most realise
    The sheer sprawl, corruption, influence and involvement of Moderna in politics and the wider medical industry is staggering. It is difficult to convey and harder to comprehend, The Underdog writes.…
    Angry
    1
    1 Comments 1 Shares 10414 Views
  • Quantum Dots, DNA Barcoding, Nano-Razors & The Israeli State
    December 17, 2021 by Dr. Ariyana Love
    December 2, 2021
    By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND

    In my latest interview with Stew Peter’s, I brought evidence confirming that Dr. Andreas Noack, the good doctor who risked his life to warn humanity of the extreme dangers of the death jab, is in fact deceased.

    Days after Dr. Noack’s mysterious death, a video was leaked revealing Graphene Hydroxide nano-razors inside the Pfizer death jab, under Dark Field Microscopy. The sample is loaded with Graphene Hydroxide.

    You will see an individual Microsphere releasing it’s payload of nanoscale Graphene Hydroxide which looks exactly like razorblades when zoomed in on the individual shiny specs. See more images here.

    LEAKED FOOTAGE: GRAPHENE HYDROXIDE NANO-RAZORBLADES – DARK FIELD MICROSCOPY

    An English translation of this video can be found in the article entitled, Dr. Ariyana Discusses Nano-Biosensors/Nanorazors and Dr. Noack’s Death After He Located Graphene Hydroxide in the COVID Vaccine.

    MICROSPHERES & MICROBUBBLES

    Microbeads and Microspheres are listed as an active ingredient in the Pfizer death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are listed in the Moderna death jab patent.

    Microspheres and Microbubbles are micrometer size devices approximately equal in size to a red blood cell, according to the NIH. That’s about the width of a Human hair.


    Microbubbles and Microspheres (bottom right)
    Microspheres and Microbubbles are made from Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA). PLGA is a copolymer made from Graphene Oxide (GO). Graphene Oxide-PLGA nanofibers are used in a host of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved “therapeutic” devices. However, the ingredients of these devices are cytotoxic, meaning they destroy cells.

    Graphene Oxide PLGA Toxicity induces an inflammatory response and deadly cytokine storm reaction, according to animal studies. The FDA should be investigated for this.

    Microspheres are coated with gold nanoparticles. Microspheres are used for scaffolding, which is artificial tissue engineering inside the Human body. PubMed writes, “Scaffolds are materials that have been engineered to cause desirable cellular interactions to contribute to the formation of new functional tissues for medical purposes. Cells are often ‘seeded’ into these structures capable of supporting three-dimensional tissue formation.”

    This technology is being used for DNA-based tissue engineering and “scaffolding” of Humans, without their Informed Consent. See more scaffolding images from a Slovakian study of the death jab, here.

    Microbubbles contain one or more “viral vectors coding CRISPR-Cas-9 system“. It’s a “state-of-the-art” drug and chemical delivery method. They contain lab enhanced chimeric proteins of the messenger RNA/DNA. Microbubbles have a lipid and nickel-coated quartz substrate. They contain a drug and chemical payload in the outer, lipid-coating and another payload on the inside.

    Graphene Oxide Nanotubes enable Microbubbles to self-replicate via electrical pulse. They interlink by electrodes. Microbubbles were designed to break through the blood/brain barrier and deliver their drug and chemical payload into brain cells. Ultrasound is used to help Microbubbles breach the blood/brain barrier. Here’s a video animation of how microbubbles / microspheres work to deliver drugs into the brain.

    This gene delivery technology was funded and developed for the purpose of treating sick people, not healthy people. It was intended to be used as a treatment for cancer, not as a medical intervention for our healthy kids.

    The Microbubble and Microsphere devices carry drug and chemical payloads for controlled release of encapsulated DNA. It’s targeted drug delivery can be unloaded over an extended period of time. This is very important to understand. They can be formulated for “sustained release” and programmed to release it’s payload at a later date, over a period of days, weeks, months or years, as the Moderna patent specifies.


    Moderna patent US10703789B2 delayed drug release
    QUANTOM DOTS & MICROBEADS

    Atomic scale nanometer devices called Quantum Dots and Microbeads, are also components of the death jab weapons system. They are found in the Pfizer and Moderna patents.

    These nanoscale technological devices are 1000 times smaller than a micrometer. Quantum Dots have nothing to do with plastic particles, these are carbon based nanocrystals, 10-50 atoms thick, and made from Graphene.

    Quantom Dots are used for DNA barcoding of Humans using CRISPR-Cas-9 technology. They are super conductors made for bio-imaging and bio-tracking of Humans. They too were developed for “therapeutic” use, to eradicate cancers, not to enslave Humans.

    Quantum Dots are artificial, color based, bioluminescent marker genes. They use three colors taken from the enzymatic proteins of insects (Luciferase), glow worms and jellyfish. The chimeric proteins are being barcoded onto Human genes to make them trackable, programmable and encoded, so Human cells will light up, enabling the NWO oligarchs to monitor your every move.

    I discussed Quantum Dots and more with Stew Peters on December 9th, 2021.

    Dr. Ariyana Love on Stew Peters Show, Dec. 9, 2021
    Microbead patent US20110017493A1, verifies that Microbeads “carbon based” (made from Graphene) and Microbead patent ES2784361T3/en specifies that it’s used to create molecular barcodes in Humans.

    Thermo Ficher sells Microbeads and markets them as Dynabeads and SPIONs. See SPIONS here.

    THE ISRAELI STATE

    This technology was developed at the Hebrew University in occupied Jerusalem. The Quantum Dot patent WO201413562A1 is owned by Yissum, a Hebrew University company owned by the Israeli state and co-owned by Nanosys, a Silicon Valley based company. These two companies are sublicensing the technology, worldwide.

    Yissum business partners include Google, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, and many more, while Samsung has a partnership with Nanosys.

    Moderna’s patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer CEO is in bed with Israel. Moderna is partnered with Israel in medical maleficence.

    Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, wants every man, women and child injected with Moderna’s poison #DeathJab, including INFANTS!


    Is it clear to you now who it is that has the greatest vested interest in branding and enslaving Humans like cattle? The cloning of insect DNA (Luciferase) into Humans is called cross-species genomics. This is the process of manually adding DNA from insects into Humans by transfection, a process also known as cloning, in order to change the genetic makeup of cells. It works by deleting one or more gene from the Human host and encodes Human cells to express the new genetic trait of an insect. Is that what you want to become?


    BIOCHIP & HYDROGEL

    Dr. Pablo Campra mentioned that nano-biosensors are in the death jabs. They can be found in the DARPA patent US7427497B2/en which lists “T-shaped micro-fluidic Biochips”.


    Hydrogels contain the entire mRNA weapons system. They need us saturated with their cloning technology in order to succeed in genetically modifying Humans to the point of patent eligibility. They will do so by injections, masks, nasal swabs, hand sanitizer, aerial spraying, and any other means necessary to achieve their end goal.

    We are in fact being saturated with Graphene Oxide Hydrogels. They’re being inserted into our food, clothing, hair and make-up products, household cleaners, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, sanitary items, water supply, etc.

    Ethylene Oxide in masks and on PCR swabs, is in fact Graphene Oxide, Poly(ethylene oxide) Graphene Nanoribbons. The bad news is that Fauci and the NIH funded mRNA nanotechnology which is skin-penetrating and can be dispensed via aerial spraying, as reported by InfoWars. The good news is this weapons system can also be expelled through the skin, if you know how to properly detox. The key to protecting yourself from this biological attack is to boost your immune system and remain on a continued Protocol.

    PROTOCOL

    There is a special natural supplement that disables the operating system, kills the parasites, and removes Graphene and other metals, effectively expelling them from your body. This supplement increases endogenous glutathione by 800%, repairs damage to your cells and to your DNA, and turns genes on, according to scientific research. This medical breakthrough is being used now by doctors who are able to reverse the coagulation cascade in just minutes. You will find this supplement in my Protocol here.

    https://ambassadorlove.blog/2021/12/17/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors-the-israeli-state/
    Quantum Dots, DNA Barcoding, Nano-Razors & The Israeli State December 17, 2021 by Dr. Ariyana Love December 2, 2021 By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND In my latest interview with Stew Peter’s, I brought evidence confirming that Dr. Andreas Noack, the good doctor who risked his life to warn humanity of the extreme dangers of the death jab, is in fact deceased. Days after Dr. Noack’s mysterious death, a video was leaked revealing Graphene Hydroxide nano-razors inside the Pfizer death jab, under Dark Field Microscopy. The sample is loaded with Graphene Hydroxide. You will see an individual Microsphere releasing it’s payload of nanoscale Graphene Hydroxide which looks exactly like razorblades when zoomed in on the individual shiny specs. See more images here. LEAKED FOOTAGE: GRAPHENE HYDROXIDE NANO-RAZORBLADES – DARK FIELD MICROSCOPY An English translation of this video can be found in the article entitled, Dr. Ariyana Discusses Nano-Biosensors/Nanorazors and Dr. Noack’s Death After He Located Graphene Hydroxide in the COVID Vaccine. MICROSPHERES & MICROBUBBLES Microbeads and Microspheres are listed as an active ingredient in the Pfizer death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are listed in the Moderna death jab patent. Microspheres and Microbubbles are micrometer size devices approximately equal in size to a red blood cell, according to the NIH. That’s about the width of a Human hair. Microbubbles and Microspheres (bottom right) Microspheres and Microbubbles are made from Poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA). PLGA is a copolymer made from Graphene Oxide (GO). Graphene Oxide-PLGA nanofibers are used in a host of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved “therapeutic” devices. However, the ingredients of these devices are cytotoxic, meaning they destroy cells. Graphene Oxide PLGA Toxicity induces an inflammatory response and deadly cytokine storm reaction, according to animal studies. The FDA should be investigated for this. Microspheres are coated with gold nanoparticles. Microspheres are used for scaffolding, which is artificial tissue engineering inside the Human body. PubMed writes, “Scaffolds are materials that have been engineered to cause desirable cellular interactions to contribute to the formation of new functional tissues for medical purposes. Cells are often ‘seeded’ into these structures capable of supporting three-dimensional tissue formation.” This technology is being used for DNA-based tissue engineering and “scaffolding” of Humans, without their Informed Consent. See more scaffolding images from a Slovakian study of the death jab, here. Microbubbles contain one or more “viral vectors coding CRISPR-Cas-9 system“. It’s a “state-of-the-art” drug and chemical delivery method. They contain lab enhanced chimeric proteins of the messenger RNA/DNA. Microbubbles have a lipid and nickel-coated quartz substrate. They contain a drug and chemical payload in the outer, lipid-coating and another payload on the inside. Graphene Oxide Nanotubes enable Microbubbles to self-replicate via electrical pulse. They interlink by electrodes. Microbubbles were designed to break through the blood/brain barrier and deliver their drug and chemical payload into brain cells. Ultrasound is used to help Microbubbles breach the blood/brain barrier. Here’s a video animation of how microbubbles / microspheres work to deliver drugs into the brain. This gene delivery technology was funded and developed for the purpose of treating sick people, not healthy people. It was intended to be used as a treatment for cancer, not as a medical intervention for our healthy kids. The Microbubble and Microsphere devices carry drug and chemical payloads for controlled release of encapsulated DNA. It’s targeted drug delivery can be unloaded over an extended period of time. This is very important to understand. They can be formulated for “sustained release” and programmed to release it’s payload at a later date, over a period of days, weeks, months or years, as the Moderna patent specifies. Moderna patent US10703789B2 delayed drug release QUANTOM DOTS & MICROBEADS Atomic scale nanometer devices called Quantum Dots and Microbeads, are also components of the death jab weapons system. They are found in the Pfizer and Moderna patents. These nanoscale technological devices are 1000 times smaller than a micrometer. Quantum Dots have nothing to do with plastic particles, these are carbon based nanocrystals, 10-50 atoms thick, and made from Graphene. Quantom Dots are used for DNA barcoding of Humans using CRISPR-Cas-9 technology. They are super conductors made for bio-imaging and bio-tracking of Humans. They too were developed for “therapeutic” use, to eradicate cancers, not to enslave Humans. Quantum Dots are artificial, color based, bioluminescent marker genes. They use three colors taken from the enzymatic proteins of insects (Luciferase), glow worms and jellyfish. The chimeric proteins are being barcoded onto Human genes to make them trackable, programmable and encoded, so Human cells will light up, enabling the NWO oligarchs to monitor your every move. I discussed Quantum Dots and more with Stew Peters on December 9th, 2021. Dr. Ariyana Love on Stew Peters Show, Dec. 9, 2021 Microbead patent US20110017493A1, verifies that Microbeads “carbon based” (made from Graphene) and Microbead patent ES2784361T3/en specifies that it’s used to create molecular barcodes in Humans. Thermo Ficher sells Microbeads and markets them as Dynabeads and SPIONs. See SPIONS here. THE ISRAELI STATE This technology was developed at the Hebrew University in occupied Jerusalem. The Quantum Dot patent WO201413562A1 is owned by Yissum, a Hebrew University company owned by the Israeli state and co-owned by Nanosys, a Silicon Valley based company. These two companies are sublicensing the technology, worldwide. Yissum business partners include Google, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Microsoft, and many more, while Samsung has a partnership with Nanosys. Moderna’s patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer patents are owned by Israel. Pfizer CEO is in bed with Israel. Moderna is partnered with Israel in medical maleficence. Moderna’s CEO Stephane Bancel, wants every man, women and child injected with Moderna’s poison #DeathJab, including INFANTS! Is it clear to you now who it is that has the greatest vested interest in branding and enslaving Humans like cattle? The cloning of insect DNA (Luciferase) into Humans is called cross-species genomics. This is the process of manually adding DNA from insects into Humans by transfection, a process also known as cloning, in order to change the genetic makeup of cells. It works by deleting one or more gene from the Human host and encodes Human cells to express the new genetic trait of an insect. Is that what you want to become? BIOCHIP & HYDROGEL Dr. Pablo Campra mentioned that nano-biosensors are in the death jabs. They can be found in the DARPA patent US7427497B2/en which lists “T-shaped micro-fluidic Biochips”. Hydrogels contain the entire mRNA weapons system. They need us saturated with their cloning technology in order to succeed in genetically modifying Humans to the point of patent eligibility. They will do so by injections, masks, nasal swabs, hand sanitizer, aerial spraying, and any other means necessary to achieve their end goal. We are in fact being saturated with Graphene Oxide Hydrogels. They’re being inserted into our food, clothing, hair and make-up products, household cleaners, alcohol, pharmaceutical drugs, sanitary items, water supply, etc. Ethylene Oxide in masks and on PCR swabs, is in fact Graphene Oxide, Poly(ethylene oxide) Graphene Nanoribbons. The bad news is that Fauci and the NIH funded mRNA nanotechnology which is skin-penetrating and can be dispensed via aerial spraying, as reported by InfoWars. The good news is this weapons system can also be expelled through the skin, if you know how to properly detox. The key to protecting yourself from this biological attack is to boost your immune system and remain on a continued Protocol. PROTOCOL There is a special natural supplement that disables the operating system, kills the parasites, and removes Graphene and other metals, effectively expelling them from your body. This supplement increases endogenous glutathione by 800%, repairs damage to your cells and to your DNA, and turns genes on, according to scientific research. This medical breakthrough is being used now by doctors who are able to reverse the coagulation cascade in just minutes. You will find this supplement in my Protocol here. https://ambassadorlove.blog/2021/12/17/quantum-dots-dna-barcoding-nano-razors-the-israeli-state/
    AMBASSADORLOVE.BLOG
    Quantum Dots, DNA Barcoding, Nano-Razors & The Israeli State
    By Dr. Ariyana Love, ND Dark Field Microscopy image of Graphene Hydroxide nano-razorblades In my latest interview with Stew Peter’s, I brought evidence confirming that Dr. Andreas Noack, the …
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8202 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight
    Debbie Lerman
    When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on?

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

    The analysis will show that:

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

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

    Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

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

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

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

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

    Military Acquisition

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

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

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

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

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

    What are “OTA authorities?”

    Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA)

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

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

    What types of transactions are we talking about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What About OTAs for Medical Products?

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

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

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

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

    Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines

    What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Criteria for issuance of authorization

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

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

    PREP Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

    Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines

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

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

    But what about the government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Acknowledgements

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

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

    Author

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

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

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight Debbie Lerman When everyone from the President to your primary care doctor declared loudly and wholeheartedly in December 2020 that the newly FDA-authorized Covid mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” – what were those claims based on? In this article, I will review the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots. I will use the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. The analysis will show that: The Covid mRNA vaccines were acquired and authorized through mechanisms designed to rush medical countermeasures to the military during emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction. These mechanisms did not require the application of, or adherence to, any laws or regulations related to vaccine development or manufacturing. The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.) What all of this means is that none of the laws or regulations that we count on to protect us from potentially harmful, or deadly, medical products was applied to the Covid mRNA vaccines. The assertion of “safe and effective” was based entirely on aspirations, opinions, beliefs, and presumptions of government employees. In Part 1 of this article I will provide a summary of the main contractual and legal points and explain how they excluded any requirements for regulatory oversight. In Part 2, I will go through a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Contractual Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines When the US government entered into its Covid vaccine agreement with Pfizer, which was acting on behalf of the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, the agreement encompassed a minimum of 100 million doses of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” and a payment of at least $1.95 billion. The agreement also allowed for future procurement of hundreds of millions of additional doses. That’s a lot of money for a lot of items, especially since the vaccines had not yet been tested, approved, or manufactured to scale and, as the agreement stated, were purely “aspirational.” Obviously, this is not normal procedure. But, then, those were not normal times. The government declared that we were “at war” with a catastrophically dangerous virus that would kill millions and millions of people of all ages unless we could develop “medical countermeasures” (a military term) and get everyone to take them as quickly as possible. In keeping with the declaration of war, it was a military framework that was used for acquiring the aspirational products that became known as Covid mRNA vaccines. Military Acquisition The government side to the agreement with Pfizer was the Department of Defense (DoD), represented by a convoluted chain of parties, each operating as a subcontractor, or co-contractor, for the next. You’ll find details about the role of each of these military procurement groups in Part 2 of this article. The important point to recognize is that all of these bodies are charged exclusively with military objectives: “ensuring military readiness,” “enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel,” and “supporting the Army and Unified Land Operations, anytime, anywhere.” This is crucial, because the laws and procedures governing military procurement have a very different set of assumptions and cost-benefit considerations than those used in civil society. In fact, agencies governing civilian and public health, like the NIH, NIAID and HHS, do not have the authority to grant certain types of special acquisition contracts, which is why the Covid vaccine contracts had to be overseen by the Department of Defense. Thus, HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities … which HHS lacked.” [ref] What are “OTA authorities?” Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA) (NOTE: OTA is used interchangeably to refer to Other Transaction Agreement and Other Transaction Authority.) The OTA is a procurement method that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” What types of transactions are we talking about? First and foremost, the OTA acquisition structure “operates outside the Federal Acquisition Regulations.” This means no federal laws related to government purchases apply to OTAs. Such laws generally involve things like ensuring competition, accounting standards, cost management, record-keeping and labor practices. For purchases of medical products, they also include things like oversight of research on human subjects and privacy laws. Why is it a good idea to bypass all these acquisition regulations? For the military, OTAs can provide “access to state-of-the-art technology solutions from traditional and non-traditional defense contractors.” More specifically, according to DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), OTAs are designed to “avoid many of the hurdles that scare away private industry,” including “burdensome regulations.” The second defining aspect of OTAs is that they apply to projects that are …directly relevant to enhancing the mission effectiveness of personnel of the Department of Defense or improving platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the armed forces. In other words, OTA is not a pathway for government acquisitions primarily intended for civilian populations. In fact, from the time of OTA inception in 1958 until Covid, the vast majority of OTAs were awarded for weapons, military supplies, and information technologies. For example, in an overview from 2013-2018, the top OTAs dealt with underwater weapons, ground vehicles, rocket propulsion systems, and “technologies related to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or the information that rides on it.” What About OTAs for Medical Products? In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” Broadly speaking, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” Furthermore, such technologies could include “animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis, assays, diagnostic technologies, or other platform technologies.” Note that there is a mention of FDA licensing, which means a medical product cannot be purchased through OTA without any FDA involvement. The extent of that involvement will be discussed in the section on Regulations below. But before we get to the FDA, just looking at what an OTA can be applied to, it does not look like manufacturing 100 million doses of anything is even in the ballpark. Pfizer’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) DoD can make three types of agreements under OTA: research, prototypes, and manufacturing. Importantly, according to National Defense Magazine, the agreements (which are “other than contracts”) are supposed to start with prototypes and then move “from prototypes to production contracts.” In other words, you start with an OTA for a prototype and then get an actual production contract. In contrast, the agreement between Pfizer and the US government, routed through the Department of Defense and the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, classified what Pfizer agreed to deliver as a “prototype project” and “manufacturing demonstration.” As stated in the agreement: The intent of this prototype project is to demonstrate that Pfizer has the business and logistics capability to manufacture 100M doses of its currently unapproved mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine for the Government [(b)(4) redaction] So the military acquisition branch of the government is paying Pfizer to show that it can manufacture 100 million doses of a never-before produced or tested product, while also acquiring those 100 million doses, and potentially hundreds of millions more. The “prototype” somehow includes not just the manufacturing process, but also the 100 million doses created through that process. Nowhere in the history of Other Transaction Agreements is there anything remotely resembling this conflation of a prototype (“a preliminary model of something,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary) and the manufacturing of millions of exemplars of that prototype. Actually, it is unclear from the wording of the OTA whether the “prototype” applies to the mRNA Covid vaccine, the mRNA platform for manufacturing the vaccine, the actual manufacturing of 100 million vaccines, or all of the above. Regulatory Framework for Covid mRNA Vaccines What about regulatory oversight of the development and manufacturing processes? For pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, this would include: 1) clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the products, and 2) compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure what is in each dose is actually what is supposed to be in each dose. Who is responsible for this type of oversight in the context of Pfizer’s OTA? Pfizer will meet the necessary FDA requirements for conducting ongoing and planned clinical trials, and with its collaboration partner, BioNTech, will seek FDA approval or authorization for the vaccine, assuming the clinical data supports such application for approval or authorization. What are the FDA requirements “for approval or authorization?” According to the Pfizer OTA, those requirements are whatever it takes to “grant an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” In fact, the two regulations applied to the authorization of the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccines were EUA and its partner, the PREP Act, which grants legal immunity from prosecution to anyone who has anything to do with the vaccines, unless they commit outright fraud. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) EUA is a very special way to authorize a medical countermeasure in very specific types of emergencies. It was designed, according to the Department of Justice, to quickly make available effective vaccines and treatments against – among other CBRN agents – potential biowarfare/bioterror agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola, and plague. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, “Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization.” The article continues, The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. You can read about the details of EUA regulations in part 2 of this article. In summary, an Emergency Use Authorization can be granted by the Food and Drug Administration once the HHS and/or DoD have declared that there is an attack, threat of an attack, or national security threat created by a CBRN agent (a weapon of mass destruction). Significantly, as the Harvard Law article explains, EUA was not intended to cover brand-new vaccines: The only vaccine ever to have received an EUA prior to the current pandemic was AVA, an anthrax vaccine that had already been formally approved for other purposes. This is extremely important: EUA was meant for dire situations of warfare or terrorism, not to protect the entire population from naturally occurring pathogens. For this reason, EUA products do not require the type of legal safety oversight that is applied in civilian contexts by the FDA. And without adherence to legal safety standards in clinical trials and manufacturing, there is no way of knowing whether the products, in this case the Covid mRNA vaccines, are actually safe. No Legal or Regulatory Standards Apply to the FDA’s Decision to Grant EUA Here’s the kicker about EUA: because it was intended to be issued only in war and WMD-related emergencies, there are no legal requirements for how it is issued, beyond the determination of the FDA that such authorization is appropriate. No legal standards for how clinical trials are conducted. No laws regulating the manufacturing processes. Only “reasonable beliefs” based on whatever evidence is available to the FDA at the time that it makes its determination. This is how it is described in U.S. Code 360bbb-3, which covers EUA: Criteria for issuance of authorization An agent referred to in a declaration [by the HHS Secretary] can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to the Secretary, including data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that The product may be effective in diagnosing, treating or preventing such disease or condition The known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, taking into consideration the material threat posed by the CBRN agent(s) There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product In Its EUA Guidance for Industry and Other Stakeholders, the FDA recommends that EUA applications contain information about clinical trials, manufacturing processes, potential risks, etc. Crucially, as stated at the top of every page, these are merely “nonbinding recommendations.” It’s up to the EUA applicant to decide what information to submit, and it’s up to the FDA to decide whether that information meets the “statutory requirements” (as stated above). PREP Act If you agree to develop, manufacture, and sell hundreds of millions of aspirational products to the government under the contract-like Other Transaction Agreement and bioterror-contingent Emergency Use Authorization, you need very good liability protection. This is provided by the PREP (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness) Act that was designed to go hand-in-hand with EUA. Again, it is possible to envision a bioterrorism scenario, like an anthrax attack, in which the government needs to get lots of countermeasures very quickly. Many people will inevitably die in the attack, but if there’s a chance that the countermeasure will work, it needs to get made and distributed as quickly as possible. If it has some bad side effects, or even if it kills some people, one could argue that the manufacturer should not be held liable. Clearly, this was never intended to apply to a new, untested vaccine used to counter a naturally occurring virus in hundreds of millions of people. What, then, are the standards for determining the necessity of a PREP Act declaration? Here’s how the Health and Human Services (HHS) website describes the factors considered by the HHS Secretary: In deciding whether to issue a PREP Act Declaration, HHS must consider the desirability of encouraging the design, development, clinical testing or investigation, manufacture, labeling, distribution, formulation, packaging, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, donation, dispensing, prescribing, administering, licensing, and use of the countermeasure recommended in the Declaration. HHS may also consider other relevant factors. As with the EUA determination, there are no legally binding standards or directives for issuing a PREP Act. If the products made under EUA cause harm or death, no one involved in making or administering those products can be held accountable, as long as there is accompanying PREP Act protection. Conclusion The BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were authorized for use in the entire population of the United States based on the application of the following sequence of agreements and determinations: Department of Defense uses “contract-like” Other Transaction Authority (OTA) to buy aspirational products. DoD is not responsible for overseeing clinical trials or manufacturing. Pfizer is responsible for getting authorization from the FDA. The FDA is permitted to issue Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to Pfizer for mRNA vaccines because the HHS Secretary declares that there is an emergency that warrants EUA. FDA makes its EUA determination based on whatever evidence and considerations it feels are appropriate, given the emergency situation. There are no legal standards that apply to the FDA’s considerations, except that it believes the product may be effective, the benefits outweigh the risks based on available information, and there is no alternative product. The Health and Human Services Secretary grants total legal immunity through the PREP Act to anyone involved in developing, making, shipping, or administering the vaccines, based on his determination that there is an emergency that justifies this action. That’s what the “safe and effective” claim for the BioNTech/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines was based on in December 2020, when millions of people – including children and pregnant women – were mandated to take the injections. Objectors were ridiculed, silenced, ostracized, and fired. Harms and deaths were, and continue to be, covered up, uninvestigated, and uncounted. Questions About the Legality of the EUA for Covid mRNA Vaccines It sounds like something in this whole process must be illegal, right? So far, trying to charge pharmaceutical companies with wrongdoing related to Covid vaccines has failed, because the EUA + PREP combo means they were not required to apply any legal/regulatory standards to their clinical studies or manufacturing processes. But what about the government? Since the OTA, EUA, and PREP regulations are intended for use during a catastrophic CBRN emergency, we might ask ourselves: did the US government believe SARS-CoV-2 was an engineered potential bioweapon? Did the government use what we might consider an extra-legal (in civilian terms) acquisition and authorization process based on the assumption that the entire population was threatened by the equivalent of a bioterrorism or biowarfare attack? It sure seems like they did. And if so, did they have a legal obligation to inform the public of this situation in order to resort to the OTA and EUA procurement and authorization pathway? Moreover, even if the government considered Covid-19 to be a disease caused by a potential bioterror agent, how could the HHS Secretary justify an Emergency Use Authorization that required him to determine that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security” when it was known that Covid-19 was deadly almost exclusively in old and infirm populations? In December 2020 the following facts were known about Covid-19 without a reasonable doubt: The infection fatality rate (IFR) for the entire population was less than 1%. The IFR for anyone under 55 was 0.01% or lower. The IFR for children was near zero. [ref][ref][ref][ref][ref][ref] A disease that has significant potential to affect national security has to be very severe, especially in its effect on the military. Yet in December 2020 military-aged people were known to be at nearly no risk from Covid-19. And still the HHS Secretary determined that there was an emergency that warranted EUA for the mRNA vaccines. And all military personnel were mandated to get the injections. I hope that by publishing this information as widely as possible we can eventually find a way to demand some measure of accountability. Acknowledgements Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt have been trying to draw attention to this shocking legal and regulatory framework for a long time. I am deeply grateful for, and indebted to, their in-depth research and tireless work to disseminate this information. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    The FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines was based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. (This last point is being challenged in multiple court cases, so far to no avail.)
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9050 Views
  • Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two
    Debbie Lerman
    In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process.

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

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

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

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

    According to the DARPA website,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What Other OTA Laws Might Apply?

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


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

    Where is this law housed and what does it say?

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

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

    The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

    HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws

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

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

    So what did HHS do?

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

    What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

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

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

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

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

    As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Wikipedia provides this definition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

    [BOLDFACE ADDED]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

    I hope so.

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

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

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

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

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

    Author

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

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

    https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two Debbie Lerman In part one of this article, I reviewed the contractual and regulatory framework applied by the US government to the initial development, manufacture, and acquisition of the Covid mRNA shots, using the BioNTech/Pfizer agreements to illustrate the process. I showed that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) was granted to these products based on clinical trials and manufacturing processes conducted with no binding legal standards, no legally proscribed safety oversight or regulation, and no legal redress from the manufacturer for potential harms. In this follow-up article, I will provide a detailed analysis of the underlying documentation. Other Transaction Authority/Agreement (OTA): A Military Acquisition Pathway The agreement between the US government, represented by the Department of Defense (DoD), and Pfizer, representing the BioNTech/Pfizer partnership, in July 2020, for the purchase of a “vaccine to prevent COVID-19” was not an ordinary acquisition contract. It was an agreement under Other Transaction Authority (OTA) – an acquisition pathway that, according to Department of Defense guidelines, has been used since 1958 to “permit a federal agency to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.” [BOLDFACE ADDED] A thorough review of the use of OTA by the DoD, including its statutory history, can be found in the February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service report. This report, along with every other discussion of OTA, specifies that it is an alternative acquisition path for defense and military purposes. It is not intended, nor has it ever been used before Covid, for anything intended primarily for civilian use. If you look for OTA laws in the US Code, this is the path you will go down: Armed Forces -> General Military Law -> Acquisition -> Research and Engineering -> Agreements -> Authority of the DoD to carry out certain prototype projects This legal pathway very clearly shows that OTA laws are intended for acquisition of research and engineering prototypes for the armed forces. According to the DARPA website, The Department of Defense has authority for three different types of OTs: (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production. Within those three types, there are specific categories of projects to which OTA can apply: Originally, according to the OTA Overview provided by the DoD, the Other Transaction Authority was “limited to apply to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD.” OTA was later expanded to include “any prototype project directly related to enhancing the mission effectiveness of military personnel and the supporting platforms, systems, components, or materials proposed to be acquired or developed by the DoD, or to improvement of platforms, systems, components, or materials in use by the Armed Forces.” So far, none of that sounds like an acquisition pathway for millions of novel medical products intended primarily for civilian use. Is There any Exception for Civilian Use of OTA That Might Apply to Covid mRNA Vaccines? The FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 108-136) contained a section that gave Other Transaction Authority to “the head of an executive agency who engages in basic research, applied research, advanced research, and development projects” that “have the potential to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism or nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack.” This provision was extended until 2018, but does not appear to have been extended beyond that year. Also, note that even in this exceptional case of non-DoD use of OTA, the situation must involve terrorism or an attack with weapons of mass destruction (CBRN). What Other OTA Laws Might Apply? The 2019 CRS report cited above provides this chart, showing that a few non-DoD agencies have some OTA or related authorities: According to this table, The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has some research and development (R&D) Other Transaction Authorities. The law pertaining to the OT Authority of HHS is 42 U.S.C. §247d-7e. Where is this law housed and what does it say? The Public Health and Welfare -> Public Health Service -> General Powers and Duties -> Federal-State Cooperation -> Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) -> Transaction Authorities So there is a place in the law related to civilian health and welfare where OTA might be applicable, although it is valid only for research and development, not prototypes or manufacturing. The law states that the BARDA secretary has OT Authority with respect to a product that is or may become a qualified countermeasure or a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, activities that predominantly— (i) are conducted after basic research and preclinical development of the product; and (ii) are related to manufacturing the product on a commercial scale and in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] or under section 262 of this title. [BOLDFACE ADDED] The “regulatory requirements” enumerated in the law mean that it would be impossible for BARDA/HHS to enter into agreements – even just R&D – for any medical products (like the mRNA vaccines) that did not undergo rigorous safety testing and strict manufacturing oversight. HHS “Partnership” with DoD Circumvented Civilian Protection Laws To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) What are DoD’s OT Authorities for Medical Products? As discussed, OTA is intended to help the military get equipment and technology without lots of bureaucratic hassle. None of the original laws pertaining to OTA mentioned anything other than “platforms, systems, components, or materials” intended to “enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel.” But five years before Covid, an exceptional use of OTA was introduced: In 2015, DoD announced the establishment of the CBRN Medical Countermeasure Consortium, whose purpose was to use the OTA acquisition pathway to “work with DoD to develop FDA licensed chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear medical countermeasures.” [FDA = Food & Drug Administration] As described in the 2015 announcement, this included “prototype technologies for therapeutic medical countermeasures targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxin targets of interest to the DoD.” The list of agents included the top biowarfare pathogens, such as anthrax, ebola, and marburg. The announcement went on to specify that “enabling technologies can include animal models of viral, bacterial or biological toxin disease and pathogenesis (multiple routes of exposure), assays, diagnostic technologies or other platform technologies that can be applied to development of approved or licensed MCMs [medical countermeasures].” Although this still does not sound anything like the production of 100 million novel vaccines for civilian use, it does provide more leeway for OTA than the very limited Other Transaction Authority given to HHS. While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) Here’s how the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) describes its EUA powers: Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria). It’s extremely important to understand that these EUA powers were granted in 2004 under very specific circumstances related to preparedness for attacks by weapons of mass destruction, otherwise known as CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) agents. As explained in Harvard Law’s Bill of Health, Ultimately, it was the War on Terror that would give rise to emergency use authorization. After the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax mail attacks, Congress enacted the Project Bioshield Act of 2004. The act called for billions of dollars in appropriations for purchasing vaccines in preparation for a bioterror attack, and for stockpiling of emergency countermeasures. To be able to act rapidly in an emergency, Congress allowed FDA to authorize formally unapproved products for emergency use against a threat to public health and safety (subject to a declaration of emergency by HHS). The record indicates that Congress was focused on the threat of bioterror specifically, not on preparing for a naturally-occurring pandemic. The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” Could SARS-CoV-2 qualify as such an agent? If you look for the definition of “biological agents” in the US Legal Code, you will go down the following pathway: Crimes and Criminal Procedure -> Crimes -> Biological Weapons -> Definitions So in the context of United States law, the term “biological agents” means biological weapons, and the use of such agents/weapons is regarded as a crime. Wikipedia provides this definition: A biological agent (also called bio-agent, biological threat agent, biological warfare agent, biological weapon, or bioweapon) is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, fungus, or toxin that can be used purposefully as a weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare (BW). On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents. When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)… There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Looking at all of the EUAs for hundreds of Covid-related medical products, it is very difficult to see how the HHS secretary could justify the claim that “there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of US citizens living abroad” in most, if not all, of these cases. Additional “Statutory Criteria” for FDA to Grant Emergency Use Authorization Once the HHS Secretary declares that there is a public health emergency that warrants EUA, based on one of the four situations listed in the law, there are four more “statutory criteria” that have to be met in order for the FDA to issue the EUA. Here’s how the FDA explains these requirements: Serious or Life-Threatening Disease or Condition For FDA to issue an EUA, the CBRN agent(s) referred to in the HHS Secretary’s EUA declaration must be capable of causing a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. NOTE: This criterion repeats the specification of a CBRN agent, which is legally defined as a weapon used in committing a crime. Evidence of Effectiveness Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that “may be effective” to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions that can be caused by a CBRN agent(s) identified in the HHS Secretary’s declaration of emergency or threat of emergency under section 564(b). The “may be effective” standard for EUAs provides for a lower level of evidence than the “effectiveness” standard that FDA uses for product approvals. FDA intends to assess the potential effectiveness of a possible EUA product on a case-by-case basis using a risk-benefit analysis, as explained below. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL QUESTION: How can anyone legally claim that a product authorized under EUA is “safe and effective” if the legal standard for EUA is “may be effective” and the FDA declares that this is a “lower level of evidence” than the standard used for regular product approvals? Risk-Benefit Analysis A product may be considered for an EUA if the Commissioner determines that the known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. In determining whether the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks, FDA intends to look at the totality of the scientific evidence to make an overall risk-benefit determination. Such evidence, which could arise from a variety of sources, may include (but is not limited to): results of domestic and foreign clinical trials, in vivo efficacy data from animal models, and in vitro data, available for FDA consideration. FDA will also assess the quality and quantity of the available evidence, given the current state of scientific knowledge. [BOLDFACE ADDED] LEGAL NOTE: There is no legal standard and there are no legal definitions for what it means for “known and potential benefits” to outweigh “known and potential risks.” There is also no qualitative or quantitative legal definition for what constitutes acceptable “available evidence” upon which the risk-benefit analysis “may be” based. There could be zero actual evidence, but a belief that a product has a lot of potential benefit and not a lot of potential risk, and that would satisfy this “statutory requirement.” No Alternatives For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. A potential alternative product may be considered “unavailable” if there are insufficient supplies of the approved alternative to fully meet the emergency need. LEGAL QUERY: Aside from the egregious and potentially criminal vilification/outlawing of alternative Covid-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, at what point was there an approved alternative for “preventing Covid-19” (the only thing the mRNA vaccines were purchased to do) – Paxlovid, for instance – which would render an EUA for the mRNA vaccines no longer legal? Here’s how all of these “statutory criteria” were satisfied in the actual Emergency Use Authorization for the BioNTEch/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines: I have concluded that the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 when administered as described in the Scope of Authorization (Section II) meets the criteria for issuance of an authorization under Section 564(c) of the Act, because: SARS-CoV-2 can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, including severe respiratory illness, to humans infected by this virus; Based on the totality of scientific evidence available to FDA, it is reasonable to believe that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19, and that, when used under the conditions described in this authorization, the known and potential benefits of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine when used to prevent COVID-19 outweigh its known and potential risks; and There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the emergency use of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID‑19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19. [BOLDFACE ADDED] NOTE: The only context in which the FDA weighed the potential benefits and risks of the vaccine, and in which the FDA determined it “may be effective” was in preventing Covid-19. There is no consideration, no evidence of actual or potential benefit, and no determination that there is any potential effectiveness for the vaccine to do anything else, including: lowering the risk of severe disease, lowering the risk of hospitalization, lowering the risk of death, lowering the risk of any conditions actually or potentially related to Covid-19. THEREFORE, one might reasonably question the legality of any claims that the vaccine is “safe and effective” in the context of anything other than “when used to prevent COVID-19” – which the vaccines were known NOT TO DO very soon after they were introduced. If people were told the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines were “safe and effective” at anything other than preventing Covid-19, and if they were threatened with any consequences for failure to take the vaccine for anything other than preventing Covid-19, might they have a legitimate argument that they were illegally coerced into taking an unapproved product under fraudulent claims? Third-Tier Requirements for EUA for Unapproved Products Once we have the EUA-specific emergency declaration, and once the FDA declares that the product may be effective and that whatever evidence is available (from zero to infinity) shows that its benefits outweigh its risks (as determined by whatever the FDA thinks those might be), there is one more layer of non-safety, non-efficacy related regulation. Here’s how a 2018 Congressional Research Service report on EUA explains this: FFDCA §564 directs FDA to impose certain required conditions in an EUA and allows for additional discretionary conditions where appropriate. The required conditions vary depending upon whether the EUA is for an unapproved product or for an unapproved use of an approved product. For an unapproved product, the conditions of use must: (1) ensure that health care professionals administering the product receive required information; (2) ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered receive required information; (3) provide for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the product; and (4) provide for record-keeping and reporting by the manufacturer. LEGAL QUESTION: What exactly is the “required information?” We know that people were informed that the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization. But were they told that this means “a lower level of evidence” than is required for “safe and effective” claims on other medical products? Were they informed that there are different levels of “safe and effective” depending on whether a product has EUA or another type of authorization? NOTE: The law requires that there be a way to monitor and report adverse events. However, it does not state who monitors, what the standards are for reporting, and what the threshold is for taking action based on the reports. EUA Compared to Every Other Drug/Vaccines Approval Pathway As researcher/writer Sasha Latypova has pointed out, many people were confused by EUA, because it sounds a lot like EAU, which stands for “Expanded Access Use.” This is a type of authorization given to medical products when there is urgent need by a particular group of patients (e.g., Stage IV cancer patients whose life expectancy is measured in months) who are willing to risk adverse events and even death in exchange for access to an experimental treatment. Emergency Use Authorization is in no way related to, nor does it bear any resemblance to, Expanded Access Use. The various legal pathways for authorizing medical products are neatly presented in a table highlighted by legal researcher Katherine Watt. The table is part of a 2020 presentation for an FDA-CDC Joint Learning Session: Regulatory Updates on Use of Medical Countermeasures. Comparison of Access Mechanisms This table shows very clearly that the EUA process is unlikely to provide information regarding product effectiveness, is not designed to provide evidence of safety, is not likely to provide useful information to benefit future patients, involves no systematic data collection, requires no retrospective studies, no informed consent, and no institutional review board. Moreover, in a 2009 Institute of Medicine of the National Academic publication, also highlighted by Watt, entitled “Medical Countermeasures: Dispensing Emergency Use Authorization and the Postal Model – Workshop Summary” we find this statement on p. 28: It is important to recognize that an EUA is not part of the development pathway; it is an entirely separate entity that is used only during emergency situations and is not part of the drug approval process. Does this mean that approvals of Covid-19 countermeasures that were based on EUAs were illegal? Does it mean that there is no legal way to claim an EUA product is “safe and effective” because it is NOT PART OF THE DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS? Conclusion It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population. Therefore, the adherence to regulations and oversight that we expect to find when a product is deemed “safe and effective” for the entire civilian population was not legally required. Can this analysis be used to challenge the legality of the “safe and effective” claim by those government officials who knew what EUA entailed? Are there other legal ramifications? I hope so. Importantly, in legal challenges to Covid mRNA vaccines brought so far, there have been no rulings (that I am aware of) on whether military law, like OTA and EUA, can be applied to civilian situations. However, there has been a statement by District Court Judge Michael Truncale, in his dismissal of the case of whistleblower Brook Jackson v. Ventavia and Pfizer, that is important to keep in mind. Here the judge acknowledges that the agreement for the BioNTech/Pfizer mRNA vaccines was a military OTA, but he refuses to rule on its applicability to the non-military circumstances (naturally occurring disease, 100 million doses mostly not for military use) under which it was issued: The fact that both military personnel and civilians received the vaccine does not indicate that acquiring the vaccine was irrelevant to enhancing the military’s mission effectiveness. More importantly, Ms. Jackson is in effect asking this Court to overrule the DoD’s decision to exercise Other Transaction Authority to purchase Pfizer’s vaccine. But as the United States Supreme Court has long emphasized, the “complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control of a military force are essentially professional military judgments.” Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973). Thus, it is “difficult to conceive of an area of governmental activity in which the courts have less competence.” Id. This Court will not veto the DoD’s judgments concerning mission effectiveness during a national emergency. This is just one of many legal hurdles that remain in the battle to ultimately outlaw all mRNA products approved during the Covid-19 emergency, and any subsequent mRNA products whose approval was based on the Covid-19 approval process. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author. Author Debbie Lerman, 2023 Brownstone Fellow, has a degree in English from Harvard. She is a retired science writer and a practicing artist in Philadelphia, PA. View all posts Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work. https://brownstone.org/articles/covid-mrna-vaccines-required-no-safety-oversight-part-two/
    BROWNSTONE.ORG
    Covid mRNA Vaccines Required No Safety Oversight: Part Two ⋆ Brownstone Institute
    It is eminently apparent, given all the information in this article, and in the preceding Part 1, that the BioNTach/Pfizer Covid mRNA vaccines were developed, manufactured, and authorized under military laws reserved for emergency situations involving biological warfare/terrorism, not naturally occurring diseases affecting the entire civilian population.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 8835 Views
  • Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD?
    Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So what did HHS do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20.



    https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/why-did-hhs-partner-with-dod?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD? Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute Sasha Latypova Here is a key piece of legal history examined by Debbie Lerman. She is also now on Substack, please subscribe to her Debbie Lerman’s Substack. I will be quoting from Part 2 of the series of articles on Brownstone website here, Part 1 is linked to it. As you may recall, Operation Warp Speed was advertised as a “partnership” between HHS and DOD: “One Government Entity” was an odd choice of words. We have separate branches of government and separate federal agencies for many reasons. Importantly, this was envisioned by the framers as a system where federal agencies’ authorities are limited, and where different branches of government serve as checks or limits to each other. All those reasons apparently could be disregarded seemingly in an instant, under a manufactured “emergency”. At the time of the OWS announcement I thought it was odd that there was a need to bring DOD into this activity at all. What do they know about making drugs? Close to nothing. What do they know about pharmacy distribution chain in the US (which is fast, traceable, regulated by the states, very experienced, and is already established everywhere) - also not much. I later learned about the real role of the DOD in the “covid” mass murder exercise. I wrote many articles about it here, here and here, and made several presentations on this topic here and here. While it is now very clear that the DOD has been leading and funding the mass killing of civilians and own service members (to be replaced by imported mercenaries via southern border trafficking), to date, the reasons for the DOD-HHS partnerships remained vague. We knew the criminals needed the fig leaf of a faked “public health emergency” to issue the PREP Act declarations and EUAs (here, here and here), but the topic of the “partnership” remained largely unelucidated. Debbie Lerman, a journalist writing for Brownstone Institute, did some outstanding digging and analysis to uncover a really important piece of evidence of a carefully pre-planned, coordinated attack by the US federal agencies working in concert. It appears that one of the main reasons this “partnering” needed to happen was the use of Other Transaction Authority (OTA). It turns out, quite reasonably, different federal agencies have different scope of the OTAs. The scope of HHS’s OTA did not permit manufacturing pharmaceuticals at scale, especially not before satisfying regulatory requirements for safety. To summarize the predicament of Other Transaction Authority/Agreements with respect to civilian authorities, in general, and Covid mRNA vaccines, in particular: OTA was written and codified as a way for the military to acquire weapons and other necessary systems and equipment without a lot of bureaucratic red tape. It covers research and development, prototypes, and subsequent manufacturing. The only OTA for a public health agency is for the HHS and it only covers Research & Development, not prototypes or manufacturing. Even the R&D OTA given to the HHS still requires products to be manufactured “in a form that satisfies the regulatory requirements” for drug and vaccine safety. In other words: There is no way HHS could have used its very limited OTA to sign contracts for hundreds of millions of novel medical products. So what did HHS do? As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in its July 2021 report on “Covid-19 Contracting:” HHS “partnered” with DoD to “leverage DoD’s OTA authorities…which HHS lacked.” (p. 24) Acting as separate federal agencies within the limits of their authorities, neither HHS nor DOD would have been able to order 100 million doses of unapproved, untested, previously thoroughly failed “vaccine”. So they “partnered” in order to break the constraints of their authorities: While the HHS OTA requires adherence to extensive development and manufacturing regulations, the OTA pathway for the DoD to develop medical countermeasures requires only “FDA licensure.” Thus, using DoD Other Transaction Authorities, it would theoretically be possible to bypass any safety regulations – depending on the requirements for FDA licensing of an OTA-generated product. As we will see, in the case of the Covid mRNA vaccines, Emergency Use Authorization was granted, requiring no legal safety oversight at all. Another very useful insight from Debbie on EUA Countermeasures law is that the utilization of EUA in this “partnering” scheme is evidence in itself that the relevant US Government officials never believed covid was a viral pandemic. They knew it was a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) agent or combination of such agents. That is because the EUA law does not include naturally occurring viral outbreaks (if you believe those exist in modern sanitary conditions, I don’t). The fact that the senior government executives lied by pumping mass propaganda about the “wet market zoonotic jump”, utilizing massive network of DHS and intelligence contractors to censor any social media mention to the contrary, prosecuting and smearing any credentialed person who pointed to the holes in their narrative, performing endless clown-show Congressional hearings about whether it was a zoonotic jump or a Wuhan leak, and currently continue to pretend covid was a viral pandemic only points to one thing - this attack being perpetuated by those who lie and cover it up, i.e. the US Government officials themselves: The wording of the EUA law underscores the fact that it was intended for use in situations involving weapons of mass destruction. Here are the 4 situations in which EUA can be issued: a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of Title 10 or Title 50, of attack with— a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to United States military forces; a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents; or the identification of a material threat pursuant to section 319F–2 of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 247d–6b] sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad. Nowhere in these four situations is there any mention of a naturally occurring epidemic, pandemic, or any other kind of public health situation that is not caused by “biological, chemical, radiological or nuclear agent/s.” On What Legal Basis was EUA Issued for Covid mRNA Vaccines? It would seem, based on the laws regarding EUA, that none of the four possible situations described in the law could be applied to a product intended to prevent or treat a disease caused by a naturally occurring pathogen. Nevertheless, this law was used to authorize the mRNA Covid vaccines. Given the four choices listed in the EUA law, the one that was used for Covid “countermeasures” was: “C) a determination by the Secretary that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.” When applied specifically to Covid, this is how it was worded: “the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)…” There is no doubt here that “the virus that causes COVID-19” is deemed to be the equivalent of “a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents.” It is also important to note that the EUA “determination of a public health emergency” is completely separate from, and not in any way reliant on, any other public health emergency declarations, like the ones that were made by the WHO, the US government, and the President at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. So even when the WHO, the US government, and the President declare that the pandemic is over, there can still be Emergency Use Authorization if the HHS Secretary continues to claim that the situation described in section C) exists. Katherine Watt on how to prosecute this using the laws as material facts: One possible scenario includes motions for summary judgment, asking the federal judges to review the evidence and arguments presented, and rule that there is no dispute as to material facts: that the evidence against the US Government is so clear, the cases don’t need to move to trial. Plaintiffs will be arguing that the US Government has criminally built an illegitimate statutory, regulatory and executive authority framework to theoretically de-criminalize acts of terrorism and use of chemical and biological weapons against the American people when committed by the US Government itself through the Department of Defense behind the false front of ‘public health.’ And that starting in January 2020, named officials within the US Government actually used those illegitimate legal frameworks to turn real bioweapons on the people. The US Government’s primary defense will — in all likelihood — be based on its arguments that everything done by defendants was authorized by Congress and US presidents through the same statutes, regulations and executive orders. Which means that on the basic issues of material fact, there is no dispute. The only questions are the moral and legal questions: can a government lawfully kill off its own people? Judges can and do summarily grant relief to plaintiffs on the basis of solid pleadings, early discovery and lack of dispute over material facts. The cognitive mind-fuckery the globalists set up is that there’s usually a difference between the facts and the law during litigation. But in this case, the material facts are the laws. Art for today: Angels and demons, 16x20. https://open.substack.com/pub/sashalatypova/p/why-did-hhs-partner-with-dod?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Why Did HHS "Partner" with DOD?
    Review of Article by Debbie Lerman for Brownstone Institute
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4982 Views
  • This morning, Dr. Paul Marik joined host Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk to discuss how intermittent fasting can be used to treat long COVID, "long vax", and other chronic diseases including diabetes.

    Watch here: https://flccc.net/flccc-and-the-national-desk-tnd-kick-off-partnership/
    This morning, Dr. Paul Marik joined host Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk to discuss how intermittent fasting can be used to treat long COVID, "long vax", and other chronic diseases including diabetes. Watch here: https://flccc.net/flccc-and-the-national-desk-tnd-kick-off-partnership/
    FLCCC.NET
    FLCCC and The National Desk (TND) Kick Off Partnership
    Dr. Paul Marik joined Jan Jeffcoat on The National Desk (TND) on January 15 to discuss how intermittent fasting can be used to treat long COVID, long vax, and other chronic diseases including diabetes.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 533 Views
  • The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
    Claudio RestaJanuary 18, 2024

    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

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



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Parallel censorship agencies

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

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

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

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

    Government infiltration and takeover

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

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

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

    Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques (AMITT).

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

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

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

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

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

    The arming of the financial sector was born with the CTIL

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

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

    Under the cover of altruism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Good news, bad news

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    ATTENTION READERS

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

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

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/the-cyber-threat-intelligence-league/
    The Cyber Threat Intelligence League Claudio RestaJanuary 18, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors: US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA) – Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and organizations non-profit – seeks to control and criminalize “wrong thinking”. – The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media. They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, and the discrediting of dissidents “as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship in their comparisons.” – Documents show that the weaponization of the financial sector originated with the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL), which specifically sought to get banks to “cut off financial services to individuals organizing gatherings or events.” – CTIL files also show that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant, “the ethic was that if we get away with it, it’s legal.” Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag and Matt Taibbi from an anonymous but “highly credible” whistleblower reveal new details about how the US censorship industrial complex – a network of more than 100 government agencies, private companies, universities and non-profit organizations – regulates and criminalizes “wrong thinking”. as Ursula Van der Leyen, the president of European Commission since 2019, stated at the WEF in Davos on January 17th, 2023 similar censorship are the most urgent and necessary policies (!) and will be implemented everywhere They describe the activities of an “anti-disinformation” group called the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, or CTIL, which officially began as a volunteer project of data scientists and defense and intelligence veterans, but whose tactics over time appear to have been absorbed into multiple official projects, including those of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The CTI League documents provide missing answers to key questions not addressed in the Twitter Files and Facebook Files. Together, they offer a complete picture of the rise of the “anti-disinformation” industry, or what we have called the Censorship Industrial Complex.” The documents describe how modern digital censorship programs were created and the various roles of the military, US intelligence agencies, civil society organizations and commercial media. They also describe the methods and techniques used, such as the creation and use of “sock puppet” accounts to spy on and direct online discussions and propagate desired narratives, the discrediting of dissidents, and the deliberate weaponization of the financial industry against them . According to the whistleblower, the CTIL was also involved in the creation of a counter-disinformation project to “avoid a repeat of 2016”, a reference to Brexit and Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the elections, two situations in which the democratic processes have actually won. As Jimmy Dore noted, it wasn’t about preventing the circulation of false information. It was about ensuring that no political outsider could ever enter the Oval Office again. The instruction to prevent a repeat of 2016 was a direct call to undermine, if not eliminate, the process of free and fair elections. Importantly, the documents admit that censorship efforts against Americans must be carried out by private sector partners, because the government does not have “legal authority” to do so. The new series of documents and videos reveals that 2019 was a pivotal year for the censorship industrial complex. According to Public, it was then that “US and British military and intelligence contractors, led by a former British defense researcher, Sara-Jayne ‘SJ’ Terp, developed the blanket censorship framework.” These contractors became co-leaders of CTIL, whose original founders were a former Israeli intelligence official, Ohad Zaidenberg, the person responsible of Microsoft security Nate Warfield, Chris Mills, another Microsoft security official, and Marc Rogers, the head of security operations at the hacker convention DEF CON. According to media reports , these highly trained and in-demand professionals have made the altruistic decision to offer their services to help billion-dollar hospitals with their cybersecurity, for free and with no strings attached. It wasn’t a believable cover story then, and it certainly hasn’t gotten any better. Within a month of CTIL’s founding in March 2020, this supposedly entirely volunteer group had grown to 1,400 “invitation-only” members in 76 countries and entered into an official partnership with Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) of the United States Department of Homeland Security. As reported by Public: Parallel censorship agencies In spring 2020, CISA also created the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) – a consortium composed of the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO), the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, the Atlantic’s Digital Forensic Research Lab Council and from Graphika (a social media analytics company) – and outsourced what would otherwise have been illegal and unconstitutional censorship. During the 2020 election cycle, EIP and CISA worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and the DHS-supported Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC) to influence and monitor political discussions online. EIP coordinated the removal of unwanted content using a real-time chat application shared by DHS, EIP, and social media companies. At the same time, CTIL monitored and reported anti-blockade views on social media. A “law enforcement” channel was created specifically to spy on and monitor social media users posting anti-lockdown hashtags. CTIL even kept a printout detailing their Twitter biographies. According to Public, the CTIL has also “engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote ‘counter-messaging,’ co-opting hashtags, diluting unfavorable messaging, creating sock puppet accounts, and infiltrating private groups by invitation.” In February 2021, the EIP was renamed the Virality Project, at which point its censorship focus shifted from elections to COVID-related issues. Government infiltration and takeover Although CTIL member Bonnie Smalley responded to a Public question by saying that CTIL has “nothing to do with the government,” the evidence shows otherwise. At least a dozen government employees working with DHS, the FBI, and CISA were also active members of CTIL. According to the whistleblower, CTIL’s goal “was to become part of the federal government.” Terp’s plan called for the creation of “MisinfoSec communities” that would include the federal sector, and documents show that this goal was achieved. In April 2020, Chris Krebs, then director of CISA, also publicly announced the agency’s partnership with CTIL. The audience continues:“The documents also show that Terp and his colleagues, through a group called the MisinfoSec Working Group, which included [Renee] DiResta, head of research at the Stanford Internet Observatory, created a censorship, influence and counter-disinformation strategy called Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques (AMITT). SJ on X: "AMITT (Adversarial Misinformation and Influence Tactics and Techniques) includes the left-of-boom misinformation activities that are often missed by other analyses, where ”left of boom” covers activity before an incident They wrote AMITT by adapting a cybersecurity framework developed by MITER… Terp then used AMITT to develop the DISARM framework, which the World Health Organization then used to “counter anti-vaccination campaigns across Europe.” A key component of Terp’s work through CTIL, MisinfoSec and AMITT has been to bring the concept of “cognitive security” to the fields of cybersecurity and information security… The ambitions of the 2020 pioneers of the censorship industrial complex went far beyond simply requiring Twitter to place a warning label on tweets or blacklist individuals. The AMITT framework calls for discrediting people as a necessary prerequisite for requiring censorship of them. Invite influencers to train to spread messages. And he invites us to try to convince banks to cut financial services to individuals who organize demonstrations or events.” The arming of the financial sector was born with the CTIL Now we know where this financial sector weapon comes from. It originated with the CTIL, which hspecifically sought to induce banks to “cut financial services to individuals who organize rallies or events”. Clearly, as my case and that of many others demonstrates, even banks and online payment processors have been tricked into cutting off services to people who simply expressed opposing views. It’s not just demonstration organizers who are being targeted. Under the cover of altruism Although CTIL officials have repeatedly stressed that the organization was founded on purely altruistic principles, the clear goal of its leaders was to “build support for censorship among national security and cybersecurity institutions,” writes Public, and they built that support by promoting Terp’s idea of “cognitive safety.” The choice of the term “cognitive safety” takes on a rather sinister flavor in light of Dr. Michael Nehls’ findings that over the past four years there has been what appears to be an intentional effort to destroy autobiographical memory function in the public’s brain , thus facilitating mass indoctrination and inhibiting personal will and critical thinking.vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors The Indoctrinated Brain - By Michael Nehls (hardcover) : Target He presents his thesis in the book “The Indoctrinated Brain: How to Successfully Fend Off the Global Attack on Your Mental Freedom”, published in mid-December 2023. The whistleblower material clearly reveals that sophisticated military tactics have been turned against the American public, powerful psychological tools – the same tools that, according to Nehls, can literally alter the biological functions of the brain. Public cites a MisinfoSec report in which “the authors called for placing censorship efforts within ‘cybersecurity,’ while acknowledging that ‘disinformation security’ is entirely different from cybersecurity. They wrote that the third pillar of the “information environment”, after physical and cyber security, should be the “cognitive dimension”. Indeed, your mind – your cognition, your very ability to think independently – is the battlefield of today’s war, as Nehls proposes in his book. The scary part is that the tools used have the power to reprogram who we are. We are indeed “hackable animals,” as proposed by Yuval Noah Harari, and the censorship industrial complex has already hacked the brain structure of billions of people over the past four years. Gutentag also talks about it in an article dated December 3, 2023:”What was once considered a “conspiracy theory”, according to which military and intelligence forces manipulated public opinion through inorganic interventions, has now been confirmed . Our study of the censorship industrial complex has exposed a far-reaching plan to subvert the democratic process and engage in activities that have a basis in military techniques and that amount to attempts at thought or mind control.” ”It’s legal if we can get away with it” The CTIL files also demonstrate that there was a clear intent to circumvent the First Amendment by outsourcing censorship to the private, non-governmental sector. According to the informant:“The ethos was if we get away with it, it’s legal, and there were no First Amendment problems because we have a ‘public-private partnership’ – that’s the word they used to mask these problems. Private individuals can do things that public officials cannot do, and public officials can provide leadership and coordination.” Good news, bad news ”The good news is that more and more information is coming out about the U.S. government’s illegal outsourcing of censorship, and with it, legal challenges that pose roadblocks to this circumvention of the Constitution. The three activists also achieved other victories. In August 2022, DHS was forced to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board due to public backlash. CISA also deleted information about its national censorship work from its website and dismantled its Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malinformation (MDM) subcommittee. The federal government’s Select Subcommittee on Armaments is also continuing its search for the truth and will (hopefully) use all the power at its disposal to put an end to the abuses. Its latest report, “The Weaponization of ‘Disinformation’ Pseudo-Experts and Bureaucrats: How the Federal Government Partnered with Universities to Censor Americans’ Political Speech” was released on November 6, 2023. Unfortunately, there is a global effort underway not only to normalize, but also to legalize this type of censorship by third parties. In short, they are trying to restructure the censorship industry “away from a top-down government-led model” to a “competitive brokerage model” in which “content management” (read censorship) is simply outsourced to third-party organizations. In this way, a “legal” market for disinformation compliance is created, while the government can claim to have nothing to do with controlling the information. In essence, we are witnessing the emergence of organized corporate censorship. There is no clear solution to this threat other than to continue to oppose all efforts to legalize, standardize and normalize censorship. Vocally oppose, refuse to use intermediaries like NewsGuard, and boycott any company or organization that uses intermediaries or engages in censorship of any kind.” Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too. Grew up in a family of scientists where many sciences were represented by philosophy to psychoanalysis, from economics to history, from mathematics to physics, and where these sciences were subject to public display by their subject experts family members, and all those who they were part of could participate in a public family dialogue/debate on these subjects if they so wished. Read Full Bio Latest Articles (2023-Present) Archived Articles (2019-2022) ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/the-cyber-threat-intelligence-league/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    The Cyber Threat Intelligence League
    There is a vast plan for global censorship by US and British military contractors: US military contractor Pablo Breuer (left), UK defense researcher Sara-Jayne “SJ” Terp (center), and Chris Krebs, former director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (DHS-CISA) – Documents received by investigative journalists Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag...
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 10584 Views
More Results