Genuine men''s bags retro men''s business bags briefcase cowhide oblique Bag 15.6 inch Laptop Bag
Product Link: https://fadmart.shop/goodsDetails?jobsProductId=1669756538698588160&recommendProductId=2404280722100354400&hyId=kibt-fe-cj

#online #virel #SoMee #trending #love #friends #like #upvote #sponsored #boost #boss #strong #woman #fashion #bag

More Proof mRNA Shots Edit Human Genome
New Study Again Shows LINE-1 "Junk DNA" Does The Dirty Work

Dr. Syed Haider
Could the mRNA shots edit germline DNA?
Honest scientists have always been worried about retrointegration of foreign mRNA from “vaccine” shots into our own cellular DNA.

This fear should have been allayed by rigorous genotoxicity safety studies before the mRNA shots where rolled out, but those studies were waived by the Big Pharma controlled FDA (with the DoD behind the scenes pulling all the strings).

Previous research showed that this could theoretically occur in a human liver cancer cell line inside a controlled laboratory setting utilizing our own bodies reverse transcriptase enzymes that are upregulated in cancer cells.

Naysayers still argued that this situation was impossible or at least extremely unlikely to occur in our bodies.

Unfortunately there is now further proof that this really does occur, either right away after vaccination, or if not, then it’s even more likely to occur once a vaccinated individual catches COVID-19, as long as vaccinal mRNA remains present in the body (so far we know it remains in circulation for weeks and in the lymph nodes for months - likely far longer, since all the studies had to be stopped, presumably due to lack of funding, or out of fear of creating unpublishable papers since the news wasn’t looking good).

Thank you for reading Dr. Syed Haider. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

A new paper by Zhang et al, just released on Feb 13, 2023 proves that at artificially high concentrations in a lab setting, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can retrointegrate into our genome.

Thankfully during natural infection such high levels of viral RNA do not typically occur, but … (you knew there had to be a “but”)

… such high levels are induced by mRNA vaccination.

So what the paper may actually prove in the roundabout way of most modern research (required for publication to ever happen in todays politically charged Big Pharma controlled publishing environment) is that the mRNA in the shots is in fact likely to retrointegrate into our cellular DNA.

To dig into the details we need to start with a quick basic bio refresher:

Understanding Genetics
Nearly every cell in our bodies carries a full copy of our genetic code, or genome (the exceptions are red blood cells that have no genome, and sperm and egg cells that have half a genome since they are meant to combine with half of someone else's genome).

Our genome is made up of individual genes encoded by DNA and bundled together into 46 chromosomes that are stored in a central compartment of our cells called the nucleus.

In order to “read" the DNA code and convert it into the structure that makes up our bodies, it is first translated by a “reader” protein that writes it out into a new free floating molecule called mRNA for messenger RNA (the mRNA shots carry this messenger RNA, not modified RNA as some people think).

The mRNA, unlike the DNA is not stuck inside the chromosome and it can exit the nucleus, going into the larger compartment called the cytoplasm of the cell, where its message is “read” and translated into an amino acid sequence that folds itself into a protein (either a body protein, or in the case of the shots the spike protein, or in the case of an RNA virus infection like SARS-CoV-2, all the proteins of the virus).

Now going back to the nucleus: some of the individual DNA encoded genes can move around within their chromosomes and have therefore been described as "jumping genes" or technically speaking: transposable elements (TEs).

Jumping genes!
Some of these jumping genes (Class 1 TEs) use a copy and paste mechanism and others (Class 2 TEs), like the one in the cartoon depiction above, use a cut and paste mechanism.

The Class 1 TEs (AKA retrotransposons) that use the copy and paste mechanism do so by translating their DNA into RNA and then converting the RNA back into DNA and inserting it somewhere else in the genome.

The Class 1 TEs or retrotransposons, include within themselves the genetic code necessary to create their own protein enzyme to convert the DNA back into RNA, which is termed reverse transcriptase.

Fun fact: retroviruses like HIV can be considered a special subtype of retrotransposon that can not only reinsert inside the same cell, but also travel to other cells “infecting” them and reverse transcribing into their genomes.

In humans the only active jumping genes are from CLASS 1 TEs/retrotransposons and are called LINE-1 retrotransposons (LINE stands for Long Interspersed Nuclear Elements).

LINE-1 retrotransposons were once considered to be junk DNA, they are usually inactivated, but can be turned on in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells and in general in any cell subjected to significant stress.

Junk DNA, which makes up 98.5% of our genome, is still little understood. It may help regulate the activity of the other 1.5% of the genome that does code for proteins, is likely involved in genome evolution, and has been implicated in disease states like cancer, autism and dozens of genetic diseases.

So, what’s been shown in this new paper by Zhang et al, is that a lab clone of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when present in very high levels, does turn on LINE-1, which means it also turns on the LINE-1 reverse transcriptase enzyme, which it then makes use of to reverse transcribe itself into our DNA.

But even worse: genome sequencing found the viral genetic code transcribed into our DNA not only in cells where LINE-1 was actively turned on, or overexpressed above baseline, but even in cells where it was not.

Is Sangamo's Gene-Editing Approach a Bust? | The Motley Fool
Then, instead of studying the LNPs and spike protein RNA used in the shots, the researchers (who valued their careers) used a different mechanism of delivering low levels of nucleocapsid RNA into the cells in the lab to see if they also up regulated LINE-1 expression and were integrated into the cellular DNA.

Turns out this handicapped experiment did not up regulate LINE-1, or get taken up in detectable quantities by healthy cells, though it did lead to genomic uptake in cells that already had LINE-1 upregulated - which again happens in aging cells, cancer cells, virus infected cells or simply in cells under stress (perhaps from LNP and spike protein induced inflammation?).

The study authors addressed the discrepancy in retrointegration between the viral clone and their handicapped version of an mRNA shot by theorizing there were:

"...several possible explanations for the differences in the levels of retrotransposition in infected and transfected cells: (i) The relative abundance of viral RNA is almost 2 orders of magnitude higher in infected than in transfected cells which would increase the probability of association with LINE1 proteins; (ii) virus infection, but not viral mRNA transfection, can induce endogenous LINE1 expression; (iii) multiple factors during SARS-CoV-2 infection can inhibit the antiviral/anti-retrotransposition function of stress granules (48–53), which could increase retrotransposition.”

The first theory is the most concerning.

Based on what we know from a 2020 study by Xie et al that showed the very high levels of intracellular viral RNA achieved by infectious clones, we can extrapolate that in the current study by Zhang et al the concentration of mRNA achieved by the SARS-CoV-2 viral clone was likely about 1000X greater than the low levels typically found during a natural infection.

In fact the levels of mRNA in each cell achieved by the viral clone in the current study are actually far more likely to be achieved by transfection into cells of LNPs in the shots carrying spike protein mRNA than they are during a natural infection.

Life finds a way. - Reaction GIFs
So if the authors first theory is correct, that the difference in retrointegration rates simply depends on the intracellular concentration of foreign RNA, then retrointegration is very likely to occur due to exposure to mRNA in the shots, and it is likely to dramatically increase in case someone who has received the shot later becomes infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus - since we know it upregulates LINE-1 expression, or if they are put under other stressors including the development of cancer, or by the stress of long COVID, chronic vaccine injury, autoimmune disease, autonomic dysfunction, POTS, MCAS, etc - all of which are also sadly enough triggered by the shot.

This is less likely to happen in germ cell DNA - our sperm and egg cells - and lets hope it doesn’t happen, since we already know that the shots likely do transmit altered immunity from mother to child, if they also pass on the mRNA coding the spike protein itself then huge swaths of humanity may be forever genetically altered.

Heres hoping the label “junk DNA” actually applies in this case…

But, if you’ve been vaccinated: don’t worry!

At mygotodoc we routinely reverse vaccine injuries and sincerely believe every disease has a cure.

Fear is more likely to kill you than the shot (but do stop getting the boosters), and I mean that literally: fear destroys the immune system.

A healthy immune system can keep any illness in check even if from a retrointegrated virus or viral mRNA fragment.

There are a lot of unknowns, but don’t let that scare you. Take your health into your own hands and start making positive changes today.

https://blog.mygotodoc.com/p/more-proof-mrna-shots-edit-human


https://telegra.ph/More-Proof-mRNA-Shots-Edit-Human-Genome-09-17-2

The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 1: How Safe Is It, Really?
This first installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine explores peer-reviewed scientific literature that reveals serious safety concerns about a vaccine widely regarded as safe.

The Epoch Times

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

By Yuhong Dong

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

Summary of Key Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order Now

What is HPV?

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

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

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

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

HPV-associated cancers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HPV vaccines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HPV VAERS reports from 2 large countries

U.S. HPV vaccine adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia HPV vaccines adverse events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ovarian insufficiency

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

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

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

VAERS analysis on ovarian failure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 case reports on ovarian insufficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danish retrospective cohort study finds no link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-1.html

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/

Israel’s Genocide Betrays the Holocaust
By obscuring and falsifying the lessons of the Holocaust we perpetuate the evil that defined it.

Chris Hedges

Never Again and Again and Again - by Mr. Fish

Israel’s lebensraum master plan for Gaza, borrowed from the Nazi’s depopulation of Jewish ghettos, is clear. Destroy infrastrutrue, medical facilities and sanitation, including access to clean water. Block shipments of food and fuel. Unleash indiscriminate industrial violence to kill and wound hundreds a day. Let starvation — the U.N. estimates that more than half a million people are already starving — and epidemics of infectious diseases, along with the daily massacres and the displacement of Palestinians from their homes, turn Gaza into a mortuary. The Palestinians are being forced to choose between death from bombs, disease, exposure or starvation or being driven from their homeland.

There will soon reach a point where death will be so ubiquitous that deportation - for those who want to live - will be the only option.

Danny Danon, Israel's former Ambassador to the U.N. and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Israel’s Kan Bet radio that he has been contacted by “countries in Latin America and Africa that are willing to absorb refugees from the Gaza Strip.” “We have to make it easier for Gazans to leave for other countries,” he said. “I'm talking about voluntary migration by Palestinians who want to leave.”

The problem for now “is countries that are willing to absorb them, and we're working on this,” Netanyahu told Likud Knesset members.

In the Warsaw Ghetto, the Germans handed out three kilograms of bread and one kilogram of marmalade to anyone who “voluntarily” registered for deportation. “There were times when hundreds of people had to wait in line for several hours to be ‘deported,’” Marek Edelman, one of the commanders of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, writes in “The Ghetto Fights.” “The number of people anxious to obtain three kilograms of bread was such that the transports, now leaving twice daily with 12,000 people, could not accommodate them all.”

The Nazis shipped their victims to death camps. The Israelis will ship their victims to squalid refugee camps in countries outside of Israel. Israeli leaders are also cynically advertising the proposed ethnic cleansing as voluntary and a humanitarian gesture to solve the catastrophe they created.

This is the plan. No one, especially the Biden administration, intends to stop it.

The most disturbing lesson I learned while covering armed conflicts for two decades is that we all have the capacity, with little prodding, to become willing executioners. The line between the victim and the victimizer is razor thin. The dark lusts of racial and ethnic supremacy, of vengeance and hate, of the eradication of those we condemn as embodying evil, are poisons that are not circumscribed by race, nationality, ethnicity or religion. We can all become Nazis. It takes very little. And if we do not stand in eternal vigilance over evil — our evil — we become, like those carrying out the mass killing in Gaza, monsters.

The cries of those expiring under the rubble in Gaza are the cries of the boys and men executed by the Bosnian Serbs at Srebrenica, the over 1.5 million Cambodians killed by the Khmer Rouge, the thousands of Tutsi families burned alive in churches and the tens of thousands of Jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen at Babi Yar in Ukraine. The Holocaust is not an historical relic. It lives, lurking in the shadows, waiting to ignite its vicious contagion.

We were warned. Raul Hilberg. Primo Levi. Bruno Bettelheim. Hannah Arendt. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. They understood the dark recesses of the human spirit. But this truth is bitter and hard to confront. We prefer the myth. We prefer to see in our own kind, our own race, our own ethnicity, our own nation, our own religion, superior virtues. We prefer to sanctify our hatred. Some of those who bore witness to this awful truth, including Levi, Bettelheim, Jean Améry, the author of “At the Mind's Limits: Contemplations by a Survivor on Auschwitz and Its Realities,” and Tadeusz Borowski, who wrote “This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen,” committed suicide. The German playwright and revolutionary Ernst Toller, unable to rouse an indifferent world to assist victims and refugees from the Spanish Civil War, hanged himself in 1939 in a room at the Mayflower Hotel in New York City. On his hotel desk were photos of dead Spanish children.

“Most people have no imagination,” Toller writes. “If they could imagine the sufferings of others, they would not make them suffer so. What separated a German mother from a French mother? Slogans which deafened us so that we could not hear the truth.”

Primo Levi railed against the false, morally uplifting narrative of the Holocaust that culminates in the creation of the state of Israel — a narrative embraced by the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. The contemporary history of the Third Reich, he writes, could be “reread as a war against memory, an Orwellian falsification of memory, falsification of reality, negation of reality.” He wonders if “we who have returned” have “been able to understand and make others understand our experience.”

Levi saw us reflected in Chaim Rumkowski, the Nazi collaborator and tyrannical leader of the Łódź Ghetto. Rumkowski sold out his fellow Jews for privilege and power, although he was sent to Auschwitz on the final transport where Jewish Sonderkommando — prisoners forced to help herd victims into the gas chambers and dispose of their bodies — in an act of vengeance reportedly beat him to death outside a crematorium.

“We are all mirrored in Rumkowski,” Levi reminds us. “His ambiguity is ours, it is our second nature, we hybrids molded from clay and spirit. His fever is ours, the fever of Western civilization, that ‘descends into hell with trumpets and drums,’ and its miserable adornments are the distorting image of our symbols of social prestige.” We, like Rumkowski, “are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our essential fragility. Willingly or not we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death, and that close by the train is waiting.”

Levi insists that the camps “could not be reduced to the two blocks of victims and persecutors.” He argues, “It is naive, absurd, and historically false to believe that an infernal system such as National Socialism sanctifies its victims; on the contrary; it degrades them, it makes them resemble itself.” He chronicles what he called the “gray zone” between corruption and collaboration. The world, he writes, is not black and white, “but a vast zone of gray consciences that stands between the great men of evil and the pure victims.” We all inhabit this gray zone. We all can be induced to become part of the apparatus of death for trivial reasons and paltry rewards. This is the terrifying truth of the Holocaust.

It is hard not to be cynical about the plethora of university courses about the Holocaust given the censorship and banning of groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace, imposed by university administrations. What is the point of studying the Holocaust if not to understand its fundamental lesson — when you have the capacity to stop genocide and you do not, you are culpable? It is hard not to be cynical about the “humanitarian interventionists” — Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Samantha Power — who talk in sanctimonious rhymes about the “Responsibility to Protect” but are silent about war crimes when speaking out would threaten their status and careers. None of the “humanitarian interventions” they championed, from Bosnia to Libya, come close to replicating the suffering and slaughter in Gaza. But there is a cost to defending Palestinians, a cost they do not intend to pay. There is nothing moral about denouncing slavery, the Holocaust or dictatorial regimes that oppose the United States. All it means is you champion the dominant narrative.

The moral universe has been turned upside down. Those who oppose genocide are accused of advocating it. Those who carry out genocide are said to have the right to “defend” themselves. Vetoing ceasefires and providing 2,000-pound bombs to Israel that throw out metal fragments for thousands of feet is the road to peace. Refusing to negotiate with Hamas will free the hostages. Bombing hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, ambulances and refugee camps, along with killing three former Israeli hostages, stripped to the waist, waving an improvised white flag and calling out for help in Hebrew, are routine acts of war. Killing over 21,300 people, including more than 7,700 children, injuring over 55,000 and rendering nearly all of the 2.3 million people in Gaza homeless, is a way to “deradicalize” Palestinians. None of this makes sense, as protesters around the world realize.

A new world is being born. It is a world where the old rules, more often honored in the breach than the observance, no longer matter. It is a world where vast bureaucratic structures and technologically advanced systems carry out in public view vast killing projects. The industrialized nations, weakened, fearful of global chaos, are sending an ominous message to the Global South and anyone who might think of revolt — we will kill you without restraint.

One day, we will all be Palestinians.

“I fear that we live in a world in which war and racism are ubiquitous, in which the powers of government mobilization and legitimization are powerful and increasing, in which a sense of personal responsibility is increasingly attenuated by specialization and bureaucratization, and in which the peer group exerts tremendous pressures on behavior and sets moral norms,” Christopher R. Browning writes in Ordinary Men, about a German reserve police battalion in World War Two that was ultimately responsible for the murder of 83,000 Jews. “In such a world, I fear, modern governments that wish to commit mass murder will seldom fail in their efforts for being unable to induce ‘ordinary men’ to become their ‘willing executioners.’”

Evil is protean. It mutates. It finds new forms and new expressions. Germany orchestrated the murder of six million Jews, as well as over six million Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, communists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, artists, journalists, Soviet prisoners of war, people with physical and intellectual disabilities and political opponents. It immediately set out after the war to expiate itself for its crimes. It deftly transferred its racism and demonization to Muslims, with racial supremacy remaining firmly rooted in the German psyche. At the same time, Germany and the U.S. rehabilitated thousands of former Nazis, especially from the intelligence services and the scientific community, and did little to prosecute those who directed Nazi war crimes. Germany today is Israel’s second largest arms supplier following the U.S.

The supposed campaign against anti-Semitism, interpreted as any statement that is critical of the State of Israel or denounces the genocide, is in fact the championing of White Power. It is why the German state, which has effectively criminalized support for the Palestinians, and the most retrograde white supremists in the United States, justify the carnage. Germany’s long relationship with Israel, including paying over $90 billion since 1945 in reparations to Holocaust survivors and their heirs, is not about atonement, as the Israeli historian Ilan Pappé writes, but blackmail.

“The argument for a Jewish state as compensation for the Holocaust was a powerful argument, so powerful that nobody listened to the outright rejection of the U.N. solution by the overwhelming majority of the people of Palestine,” Pappé writes. “What comes out clearly is a European wish to atone. The basic and natural rights of the Palestinians should be sidelined, dwarfed and forgotten altogether for the sake of the forgiveness that Europe was seeking from the newly formed Jewish state. It was much easier to rectify the Nazi evil vis-à -vis a Zionist movement than facing the Jews of the world in general. It was less complex and, more importantly, it did not involve facing the victims of the Holocaust themselves, but rather a state that claimed to represent them. The price for this more convenient atonement was robbing the Palestinians of every basic and natural right they had and allowing the Zionist movement to ethnically cleanse them without fear of any rebuke or condemnation.”

The Holocaust was weaponized from almost the moment Israel was founded. It was bastardized to serve the apartheid state. If we forget the lessons of the Holocaust, we forget who we are and what we are capable of becoming. We seek our moral worth in the past, rather than the present. We condemn others, including the Palestinians, to an endless cycle of slaughter. We become the evil we abhor. We consecrate the horror.

Share

https://open.substack.com/pub/chrishedges/p/israels-genocide-betrays-the-holocaust?r=29hg4d&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Israeli child “burned completely” by Israeli tank fire at kibbutz
Ali Abunimah and David Sheen The Electronic Intifada 25 November 2023

Photo portrait of a girl with curly hair
Israeli girl Liel Hatsroni, 12, was killed after Israeli forces used a tank to shell a house in Kibbutz Be’eri on 7 October, according to an Israeli who survived the violence. (via Twitter)
An Israeli child completely incinerated at Kibbutz Be’eri was killed by two tank shells shot by Israeli forces at the end of an hours-long gun battle, a survivor of the same carnage told the Israeli state broadcaster Kan earlier this month.

Yasmin Porat, taken captive with at least a dozen other Israeli civilians on 7 October, told Kan radio that a fellow captive, 12-year-old Liel Hatsroni, survived to the end of the battle and only died when Israeli forces fired two tank shells at the house where they were held hostage by Hamas fighters.

Hatsroni’s obliteration by Israeli tank fire emerged this month after her family decided to mourn her with a public funeral, even though the government had not officially pronounced her dead.

Although Hatsroni’s 69-year-old grandfather Aviyah and twin brother Yanai were buried two weeks after their deaths on 7 October, her 73-year-old aunt and guardian Ayala was only buried on 15 November, the day after Israel officially declared her dead.

On that day the Hatsroni family also held funeral rites for Liel, though the state still listed her as missing because “to this day they have not found any of her remains,” Yasmin Porat told Kan on 15 November.

You can listen to Porat speak in that interview in this video, with English subtitles:



Three days later, the Hatsroni family was informed that archaeologists working with the Kahanist-run Israel Antiquities Authority had finally identified Liel’s remains at the house, Ynet, an Israeli news site, reported.
Although at least 50 people died in that particular bloodbath – and at least 10 of them were Israeli civilians – Porat herself left the battle intact, when one Hamas commander, out of a force that numbered about 40 fighters, surrendered.

Israeli forces called to the scene instructed the Hamas commander to come out with Porat, effectively turning her into a human shield.

“Two big booms”

In her 15 November interview on Kan’s Kalman Liberman program, Porat recounts how, of the dozen or so Israelis she was held captive with on 7 October, only one other person – Be’eri resident Hadas Dagan – survived the ordeal.

The two tank shells fired into the house at the very end of the battle killed both women’s partners, the young Liel Hatsroni and everyone else in the house who was still left alive up to then, she said.

At around 7:30 pm, after some four hours of crossfire consisting of “hundreds of thousands of bullets,” Porat peered from behind Israeli lines and observed an Israeli tank firing two shells into the small kibbutz house.

“I thought to myself, why are they shooting tank shells into the house,” Porat told Kan. “And I asked one of the people who was with me, why are they shooting? So they explained to me that it was to break the walls, in order to help purify the house.”

At the time, the captive Hadas Dagan was caught for hours in the crossfire between the two sides, lying face down on the grassy lawn. When the Israeli tank shells hit, Dagan felt their impact throughout her whole body, she told Porat after finally emerging from the combat zone in tatters.

“Yasmin, when the two big booms hit, I felt like I flew in the air,” Porat recalls a disheveled Dagan telling her minutes after the battle ended. Dagan was still covered in her husband’s blood, her hair standing on end, full of dust and styrofoam. “It took me two or three minutes to open my eyes, I didn’t feel my body. I was completely paralyzed,” Dagan told her, Porat says.

Upon regaining consciousness, Dagan realized that the captives who had been lying on either side of her – her husband Adi Dagan and Porat’s partner, Tal Katz – had just died from tank shell shrapnel. “When I opened my eyes, I saw that my Adi is dying,” Porat recalls Dagan saying. “Your Tal also stopped moving at that point.”

Though neither Porat nor Dagan witnessed the moment that fellow hostage Liel Hatsroni was incinerated by Israeli tank shells, they both immediately understood that she had died in the explosions, because after screaming for hours on end, since the beginning of the battle, she suddenly went silent.

“I remember, when I was there for the first hour, she did not stop screaming,” Porat told Kan, and noted that her recollections of Hatsroni dovetailed with what Hadas Dagan told her.

“The girl [Liel Hatsroni] did not stop screaming all those hours. She didn’t stop screaming,” Porat recalls Dagan telling her. “Yasmin, when those two shells hit, she stopped screaming. There was silence then.”

“So what do you glean from that? That after that very massive incident, the shooting, which concluded with two shells, that is pretty much when everyone died,” Porat told Kan.

Six weeks after the ordeal of 7 October, Porat concludes that Liel Hatsroni’s remains had yet to be recovered because Israeli tank shelling totally incinerated her and most of the house, finishing off many Hamas fighters and any other surviving captives.

“Part of the house is torched. The house of Hadas and Adi [Dagan] no longer exists. I don’t know how that happened,” Porat said. “If you ask me, I estimate, based on what happened in other houses, she [Liel Hatsroni] apparently burned completely.”


That Israel confirmed the death of Liel’s aunt Ayala only 38 days after 7 October suggests that she, too, was likely burned beyond recognition by Israeli tank shells.
A day after Porat’s revelation on live radio that Liel Hatsroni had been torched to death by tank fire, an Israeli official confirmed that she was not nearly the only person incinerated by Israel on 7 October and in the days that immediately followed.

Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev inadvertently admitted in a 16 November MSNBC interview that some 200 bodies Israel had claimed for weeks were those of Israelis burned to death by Palestinians were now known to be the bodies of Palestinian fighters burned to death by Israel.

“We originally said, in the atrocious Hamas attack upon our people on October 7th, we had the number at 1,400 casualties and now we’ve revised that down to 1,200 because we understood that we’d overestimated, we made a mistake. There were actually bodies that were so badly burnt we thought they were ours, in the end apparently they were Hamas terrorists,” Regev told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan.

Meanwhile, Hatsroni’s death is being used by Israeli politicians to incite and justify Israel’s vengeful slaughter of thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza.


Cracks in official narrative

After burning the bodies of some 200 Palestinian fighters, 12-year-old Israeli Liel Hatsroni, and an unknown number of other Israeli civilians, then lying to the world about who burned them and using their deaths and suffering as a pretext to destroy Gaza and annihilate more than 14,000 Palestinians there so far, Israel is finally starting to come clean about its actual contribution to the death toll on that horrific day.

Last week, Israeli daily Haaretz reported that a police investigation into the events of 7 October “indicates that an IDF [Israeli military] combat helicopter that arrived to the scene and fired at terrorists there apparently also hit some festival participants” at the Supernova rave held near the Gaza boundary that day.

Another police source criticized Haaretz and appeared to row back the statement the following day, but did not deny that Israel had killed some Israelis.

The first cracks in the official Israeli narrative about 7 October came from testimony by Yasmin Porat, a 44-year-old mother of three who fled the Supernova rave with her partner Tal Katz and found temporary shelter at Kibbutz Be’eri with local residents Adi and Hadas Dagan – until mid-afternoon. At that point, Hamas fighters captured all four and took them next door, pooling them with another group of eight or more kibbutz residents.


In her initial interview with Kan on 15 October, first reported in English by The Electronic Intifada the following day, Porat revealed that at least some of the dozen-plus Israelis held hostage with her at Be’eri died as a result of Israeli gunfire.
Asked by Kan radio host Aryeh Golan if some of the Israeli casualties of that battle had died by friendly fire, Porat answered “undoubtedly.”

Porat also told Kan and other Israeli media outlets that she and the other Israelis were not mistreated while held by Hamas fighters on 7 October. “They did not abuse us. They treated us very humanely,” Porat told Kan. “They give us something to drink here and there. When they see we are nervous they calm us down. It was very frightening but no one treated us violently.”

The goal of her Hamas captors was to trade captives for Palestinian prisoners incarcerated by Israel, Porat insists.

The 40 or so Hamas fighters who held the Israelis captive for six hours intended to take Porat and the other Israelis back to Gaza – and indeed, they could easily have done so, she said.

The fighters mistakenly assumed, however, that Israeli forces caught by surprise at dawn would have already regrouped by midday and encircled their position by the afternoon. “They could have left with us back and forth 10 times,” said Porat.

There is an increasing body of evidence that either through recklessness or by design, Israeli forces were responsible for killing a not insignificant number of Israelis on and after 7 October.

Yasmin Porat has, by now, been interviewed by just about every Israeli mainstream media outlet, but it still seems as if Israel isn’t listening to her.

Porat and Hadas Dagan, the only survivors from their group of captives, affirm that two Israeli tank shells set the house they were held in on fire and killed at least three of the people in their group: both of their partners and 12-year-old Liel Hatsroni.

In announcing Hatsroni’s death last week , Ynet nevertheless concluded that Hamas fighters “murdered everyone. Afterwards, they torched the house.”

Ali Abunimah is executive director of The Electronic Intifada.

David Sheen is the author of Kahanism and American Politics: The Democratic Party’s Decades-Long Courtship of Racist Fanatics.

Transcript of Yasmin Porat interview

Source: Kan Radio

Kalman Liberman Program

Date: 15 November 2023, 9:18 AM

Yasmin Porat: We come out and suddenly there was a very tense ceasefire. All of the weapons were pointed at us. All the Hamas were pointing at me and him. He begins disrobing while walking, he removes underwear, socks and undershirt, leaving him naked as the day he was born. That’s how we start walking in front of everyone, with him naked and me in front of him as a human shield. At that time, when we pass the living room and the porch with the dining area, where we were previously, then I go out to the yard. And there I recognize my [partner] Tal, Hadas, Adi Dagan and another Tal, the son of one couple, and another elderly couple, lying on the ground, the lawn, you can’t imagine what it looked like. Just spread out there. And full of shrapnel. Endless shooting and they are lying on the lawn, like corpses, but they were all still alive, you can see it. I managed while leaving to ask my Tal, “Tal are you okay?” and he lifted his head, and he was very frightened, because they didn’t even realize that I came out, because their heads were to the ground. Everyone put their heads to the ground to protect themselves.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): You go outside with him, and where do you go?

Yasmin Porat: And we walk the length of the yard, we reach the two rocks of the terraces, we climb them like so, and then we’re standing right on the road. We’re just across the street from the YAMAM [Israeli forces] and it’s a small road, a narrow road. Lots of police aiming their guns at us. They are shouting at him on the megaphone what I imagine was, “Let her go! Let her go!” We approach them a little more, he gives me a push, I quickly run to the police, they quickly arrest him. That’s the story of how I was saved. That’s where I was saved and held by the police. I stay with them for another three hours of battle. I simply crossed to the side of the police, but I stayed on the scene at Be’eri and at that incident until 8:30 PM.

Asaf Liberman (Host): And the terrorist that released you, what did they do to him?

Yasmin Porat: They arrested him. They arrested him and interrogated him. And by the way, today I know from the people who were there with me that he gave up lots of information, they got lots and lots of information from him that, in retrospect, saved many people, which we can say is heartening.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): When you are saved, he crosses over to the side of the police, everyone you left behind, our people, are alive?

Yasmin Porat: They stay in exactly the same situation, They are all alive. You know I didn’t count. If you had about 40 terrorists, you’re still left with 40 terrorists, because only one surrendered out of the 40. So it doesn’t change the balance of power. You stay in the same situation.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): But there were about 15 of our people.

Yasmin Porat: Great. So now they’re 14 with 39 terrorists, only two people left. And it was masses of people. And then I cross over to the police. And right away I tell them that I am able to talk, and that they can interrogate me and ask me whatever they want. And I did actually sit there with the commander of the unit, and I describe to him what the house looks like and where the terrorists are and where the hostages are. I actually draw for him: “Look, here, on the lawn there are four hostages that are lying this way on the lawn. Here are two that are lying under the terrace. And in the living room there is a woman lying like this, and a woman lying like this.” And I tell them about the twins [Yanai and Liel Hatsroni] and [their guardian and aunt Ayala Hatsroni], I didn’t see them. You know what, really, when I leave, they are the only ones I don’t see. I heard Liel the whole time, so I know for certain that they were there. I believe they were to my left – never mind. I tried to explain to them that from somewhere near the kitchen is where I heard the screams coming from. I don’t see her, but I hear her, and I hear where the screams are coming from. I tried to explain to them where all the hostages were. Obviously there were more terrorists in the house than hostages. The terrorists were in the reinforced safe room, they were in the bathroom, they were spread out under the whole terrace, under a living room window that gave protection. There was a window that protected from bullets, so lots of terrorists sat under it. Let’s say they grabbed the better spots to hide.

I remain there during those three hours, they interrogate me at least three to four times to understand what the house looks like and what to do, and how many hostages there are. And you see that they just don’t understand the scale of it. The first time I tell them that there are about 40 terrorists, they tell me, “It can’t be. It seems like you’re exaggerating.” They don’t say it [disparagingly]. “Look here at us, we are forty,” I tell them. “There’s more of them than you.’ They didn’t believe me! Our army was also still naive.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): So even at that stage, the police did not grasp the magnitude of the event.

Yasmin Porat: It did not grasp the magnitude of the event. When I say 40, they think maybe I’m exaggerating a little, that I’m hysterical.

Asaf Liberman (Host): Wow.

Yasmin Porat: That’s it. And now I’m connecting you to a little bit of the testimony of Hadas Dagan. It was not a testimony, I mean that I spoke to her personally, to understand what happened to my partner. Because in the end he was killed next to her, and I wanted to understand. And then through that story I also heard the answer about Liel, more or less. In any case, I leave. Understand, everyone [else] stays there. A battle takes place. Now they know more details than me. And the battle doesn’t end. There were attempts at a negotiation. Even that terrorist that surrendered spoke on the megaphone with his friends, in order to try to maybe convince them.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): For the [Israeli] police, this time.

Yasmin Porat: Yes, for the [Israeli] police, he speaks on the megaphone in Arabic, while naked. He screams at them. It was really … you know. And they aren’t convinced.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): Can I say something here in parentheses, Yasmin? We must assume that had this large group that was with you, this group of terrorists, known how good its position was on the kibbutz – were it elsewhere on the kibbutz, this story would have ended differently, right?

Yasmin Porat: You mean if they had known…

Kalman Liebskind (Host): That they could have just taken you and kidnapped you!

Yasmin Porat: Ah yes, yes, yes.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): They don’t have to negotiate with anyone, they don’t have to call 100 for the police. Nothing!

Yasmin Porat: Look, the first … Today we see the whole kidnapping story. You see that most of the kidnappings occurred in the morning, at 10, 11, 12 o’clock. By 3 [pm], like every [Israeli] citizen could, they think that the army is already everywhere. They could have left with us back and forth 10 times. But they didn’t believe that was the situation, so they asked for the police. In any case, I’ll cut it short for you. For another three hours, I am at a very intense battle. But now I am on the side of the so-called good guys. But everyone else is under very, very heavy crossfire, with terrorists who I understood were not cooperating, and were saying, “if you don’t let us leave alive, then everyone dies.” And at a certain point, a tank arrives opposite the house. I think it was 7 or 7:30 pm. Understand, it was still daylight saving time, and it was starting to get dark. And I thought to myself, why are they shooting tank shells into the house. And I asked one of the people who was with me, why are they shooting? So they explained to me that it was to break the walls, in order to help purify the house. I will now turn for a bit to my conversation with Hadas. I know Hadas Dagan, who as I explained was one of four people lying down outside next to each other. And another two lay down under the terrace.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): I remind you that Hadas was the lady of the house [where they were originally caught by Hamas fighters].

Yasmin Porat: Yes. The lady of the house Hadas Dagan. She believes there were two booms. I know there were the two shells shot by the tank. She didn’t even know that, because again, they can’t see anything. They are flat on the ground. She told me in these words: “Yasmin, when the two big booms hit, I felt like I flew in the air.” She felt that she died and came back to life. Briefly she feels she flew in the air and landed, though I don’t think that occurred. She told me, “It took me 2-3 minutes to open my eyes, I didn’t feel my body. I was completely paralyzed. When I opened my eyes, I saw that my Adi [Dagan] is dying.” His main artery was cut and he’s bleeding all over. She tells me she put her thumb on his main artery, but he was already dead. And then she told me, “Your Tal also stopped moving at that point,” because they lay on either side of her. Today I believe that they were human shields for her, naturally. They were two big guys and she is a small woman. They lay on her sides, and they just…

Asaf Liberman (Host): Yasmin, there are two things that require clarification for a moment.

Yasmin Porat: Yeah.

Asaf Liberman (Host): At what stage, and how did all the hostages still held in the house die? And how does Hadas get out of there alive?

Yasmin Porat: Right.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): The only one. It must be said, from that whole event, only you and Hadas came out alive.

Yasmin Porat: True. Understand the whole incident – I left there at 8:30 pm. I leave [the house], at 5:30 pm I am with the police. And I stay until 8:30 pm while there is a crazy battle. Hours of battle between the two sides. They’re all there! Understand. There were 4 people lying next to each other on the lawn in the garden. So they are always there, vulnerable to hundreds of thousands of bullets and shrapnel in the air there. There is no way to avoid damage from that. To tell you in the end who died by whose bullet? There is no way to know. It was from the crossfire. To my understanding. Because Hadas got out alive. And she says there were no executions, or anything like that. At least not the people with her. Because she tells me that after she got up from the two explosions, she lifted her head, or something like that, she felt that her husband was bleeding on her. She was covered in his blood. I also met her afterwards. And she also told me that my Tal who was lying down – he stopped moving by that point. And then, as I recall, she tells me this, she tells me: “The girl [12-year-old Liel Hatsroni] did not stop screaming all those hours. She didn’t stop screaming.” So I said, “I remember, when I was there for the first hour, she did not stop screaming.” And then she told me, “Yasmin, when those two shells hit, she stopped screaming. There was silence then.” So what do you glean from that? That after that very massive incident, the shooting, which concluded with two shells, that is pretty much when everyone died. At least that is what I know from my conversation with Hadas, who describes it. And she, for some reason, maybe because she is a small woman, and all the shrapnel flew at her husband and my partner, somehow she – listen, she did not look normal when she got out. She looked – I met her in the morning, and if you would have seen how she looked in the evening, it’s not the same person. But somehow she survived it. No shrapnel hit her. She was also hit by shrapnel, but no shrapnel hit her where –

Asaf Liberman (Host): So all the terrorists were simply killed there?

Yasmin Porat: They were all killed. All the hostages and all the terrorists. A house full of bodies. Understand…

Asaf Liberman (Host): And Hadas somehow…

Yasmin Porat: Somehow, out of all that killing, it’s like God wanted her to be with us and saved her. She walks away from all that inferno. When I saw her, she was– understand, when I met her in the morning, she was dressed nicely, her hair was combed, you know, a normal person. When she walked out of there, all her hair was on end, full of dust, with styrofoam in it.

Asaf Liberman (Host): Do you understand why there was no determination that Liel died until yesterday?

Yasmin Porat: I understood that to this day they have not found any of her remains. I think that some of the explosives there, they threw grenades and – I don’t know much about ammunition. Some of it was bigger than rifle bullets. I know they catch fire – and I also see now in photographs, part of the house is torched. The house of Hadas and Adi no longer exists. I don’t know how that happened. I can’t describe what these houses look like. Okay, you see it. If you ask me, I estimate, based on what happened in other houses, she apparently burned completely. She [Liel] did not flee from there. They did not kidnap her. I’m telling you, they did not get out of there. It was no longer the stage that anyone got out of there. No. We’re talking about 8:30 pm, total darkness, the house is burned, full of – at that point there was a lot of army there. YAMAM and MATKAL and they surrounded the house. That means that Liel could not have gotten out of there. And Hadas, who was there for all four hours of the battle, recalls that she didn’t stop screaming, the girl [Liel Hatsroni]. And suddenly she stops.

Asaf Liberman (Host): Okay.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): Yasmin Porat. Yasmin, thanks a lot for the–

Yasmin Porat: Thanks to you.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): -for sharing with us this really crazy story.

Yasmin Porat: [Sighs]. Yes. Thank you, and may we only know better days.

Kalman Liebskind (Host): Only better days.

Asaf Liberman (Host): Thank you Yasmin. Thank you very much.

Yasmin Porat
Liel Hatsroni
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
Kibbutz Be'eri

https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-child-burned-completely-israeli-tank-fire-kibbutz/41706

Visit my personal Facebook profile🤩
https://tinyurl.com/mr2c6s8
#BlueyXboxSweepstakes
#フリーレンFA
#BEFE
#BlueyXboxSweepstakes
#fridaymorning
#FridayFeeling
#हिन्दूसाहेबान_नहीं_समझे
#RockInRetroWithMyntra
#Pawan

Visit my personal Facebook profile🤩
https://tinyurl.com/mr2c6s8
#BlueyXboxSweepstakes
#フリーレンFA
#BEFE
#BlueyXboxSweepstakes
#fridaymorning
#FridayFeeling
#हिन्दूसाहेबान_नहीं_समझे
#RockInRetroWithMyntra
#Pawan

Discover effective strategies for overcoming common challenges in retro-commissioning projects. Optimize your building's performance today.
Click here to read more: https://vertenergygroup.com/common-challenges-in-retro-commissioning-projects-and-how-to-overcome-them/

The police in Scotland have tripled the use of retrospective facial recognition over the last five years jumping from just under 1,300 in 2018 to nearly 4,000 in 2022. It's being used at protests in the UK. #biometrics #surveillance

…, say hello to my new „family“ member :)
#retro #50th #fridge #red #veggies

Perfect Retro Gaming Setup Besides my Workstation
PlayStation 2 connect to CRT TV! ????

Happy “MR” Darlings! Merc Retro here for the next couple of weeks. https://www.astrologyzone.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mercury-retrograde/ ???????? The Re’s theme. Relax. Reflect. Reorganize… etc. Be #Kind Be #Patient Be #Cool ???? ???? Don’t forget to have #Fun ????????

On April 2, 1863, the Union's first submarine, USS Alligator, was lost off the coast of Cape Hatteras. Building began on it in 1861 and was propelled by 16 hand powered paddles, but was retrofitted in 1862 with a hand cranked propeller. It's intended purpose was to counter the threat of posed to wooden hulled blockaders. It was being towed by USS Sumpter towards South Carolina when bad weather hit off the the coast of North Carolina. The captain of the Sumpter ultimately decided to cut Alligator adrift in order to save his own ship. Alligator sank soon after, and has yet to be found. #history #waiv #somee #sme #pob #cine

The mowercycle.

Via retro rides