• Design an impactful one-page summary of your relevant background of job, work experience, skills, education, and hobbies using this fully customizable creative visual resume PowerPoint template. You can also use this PPT template to produce a great impact on the recruiters and attract them.
    Watch Now: https://youtu.be/aaRVSGUZC9I
    Download Now: https://bit.ly/3JFTSZJ
    #visualresume #resumedesign #cv #curriculumvitae #powerpointtemplates
    Design an impactful one-page summary of your relevant background of job, work experience, skills, education, and hobbies using this fully customizable creative visual resume PowerPoint template. You can also use this PPT template to produce a great impact on the recruiters and attract them. Watch Now: https://youtu.be/aaRVSGUZC9I Download Now: https://bit.ly/3JFTSZJ #visualresume #resumedesign #cv #curriculumvitae #powerpointtemplates
    0 Comments 0 Shares 536 Views
  • New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.

    Steve Kirsch
    Executive summary

    New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials.

    I analyze the results in this article.

    Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected.

    In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak.

    Are you surprised?

    The data

    You can download the source data from the public link.

    I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder:

    data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths
    Their analysis of the data released under OIA

    I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective.

    Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!!

    This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have.

    It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data.

    You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well.

    But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff.

    Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue!

    The analysis

    Here’s a plot of the data they provided:


    Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph:

    Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention.

    The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated.

    But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups.

    So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter.

    Age 81 to 100 analysis

    Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise.

    Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100.


    All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100.
    Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand:


    Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx)
    So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us:

    If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.”

    If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated.

    One little problem: it’s not!

    Here is the calculation:


    So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID.

    The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk.

    It was a simple sign error!

    There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed.

    This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data.

    You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself.

    The gaslighting attempts

    They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling.

    Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up.

    Summary

    The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID.

    So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data.

    That’s how science works!

    Share

    https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them. Steve Kirsch Executive summary New Zealand resident Chris Johnston submitted an OIA request (similar to a FOIA) to the New Zealand health officials. I analyze the results in this article. Short story: The data they returned shows that the COVID vaccines didn’t save anyone from dying from COVID. They did the opposite: they increased mortality. Even worse, when COVID deaths peaked in July 2022, the vaccinated were disproportionately affected. In short, they lied. Their own data shows that if you followed their advice, it was more likely you’d die during a COVID outbreak. Are you surprised? The data You can download the source data from the public link. I’ve downloaded the data, changed the numbers to numbers, did a pivot table analysis on the data, and posted it all to the New Zealand repository in this folder: data-transparency\New Zealand\FOIA responses\vaxxed vs unvaxxed deaths Their analysis of the data released under OIA I’m not aware of any respected epidemiologist who has published an analysis of that data showing that the COVID vaccines are safe and effective. Odd. I wonder why? There must be a reason!!! This is, for now, the gold-standard data on mortality of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated because the NZ health authorities won’t release the record level data so this is the best we have. It’s not as good as the record level data that New Zealand released earlier, but it’s not bad and we can draw some important conclusions from the data. You’d think that the epidemiologists worldwide would be all over this data. And all the trolls on X who claim to be expert in statistics would be all over it as well. But there is not an analysis in sight! Just hand waving attacks on my post on X that I’m a liar, etc. The usual stuff. Maybe if we looked at the data ourselves, we might have a clue! The analysis Here’s a plot of the data they provided: Two things jump out immediately in looking at this graph: Monthly death tolls hit new highs after the COVID vaccines roll out. These are excess deaths. They started making fresh highs after dose 2 and and after dose 3. Some deaths after March 2022 could be ascribed to COVID, but that’s a bit odd since the death spike is in the vaccinated, not the unvaxxed, and the vaccine is supposed to protect you from dying from COVID. Also, the variant was Omicron which wasn’t very deadly. So if people were vaccinated and died from a mild COVID variant, this should be very alarming to the authorities if they were paying attention. The deaths for the unvaccinated are relatively flat over time. So the excess deaths in New Zealand clearly was caused by a pandemic of the unvaccinated. But this interpretation based on the aggregated data could be misleading. For example, suppose that everyone over 40 years old was vaccinated and everyone under 40 was not vaccinated. The differential in death rates could be due to the mix of ages in the two groups. So to account for that we can either compute an age-standardized mortality rate for the two groups (which we don’t have the data to do since we don’t know the population sizes) or we can simply age-stratify the graphs. Since we can’t do the former, we’ll do the latter. Age 81 to 100 analysis Let’s start with 81 to 100 since that is the range where we have the most deaths so the data will have less statistical noise. Because I used pivot tables, it’s trivial to use the popup menu in cell H1 to change the age range to 81 to 100. Here’s the new graph restricted to ages 81 to 100. All-cause deaths in New Zealand by vaccination status at time of death. This chart is ages 81 to 100. Let’s look at that peak in July 2022. This is when there was a huge COVID outbreak in New Zealand: Official NZ COVID deaths. You can find this in the New Zealand repo (NZ official COVID deaths.xlsx) So how did the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated fare? The spreadsheet tells us: If you were unvaxxed, the death count went from 94 to 103. If you were vaxxed, the death count went from 1662 to 1992 during “peak COVID.” If the vaccine protects people, the increase will be smaller for the vaccinated. One little problem: it’s not! Here is the calculation: So there you go. If you got the shots, your mortality skyrocketed during peak COVID. The vaccine didn’t reduce your risk of dying from COVID. It increased your risk. It was a simple sign error! There is no need to look further. This was the big test and the vaccines failed. This is why no mainstream epidemiologist is ever going anywhere near this data. You’ll only see the analysis from “misinformation spreaders” such as myself. The gaslighting attempts They’ll try to gaslight you into believing that the mortality was higher in the vaccinated because the healthy people avoided vaccination and chose not to participate in New Zealand society. Right. Sure. The data Barry Young released shows the opposite: it was the healthier people who opted for the shots. This makes the disparity even more troubling. Of course, we’ll never get a chance to discuss this publicly in an open debate because nobody will show up. Summary The reason mainstream epidemiologists are avoiding the latest New Zealand data drop from the health authorities is that it shows the vaccines increased your risk of dying from COVID. So these epidemiologists stay silent and refuse to be questioned or participate in any public discussions about the data. That’s how science works! Share https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=548354&post_id=141812115&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=7oxwj&utm_medium=email https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/new-zealand-oia-request-reveals-covid.html
    KIRSCHSUBSTACK.COM
    New Zealand OIA request reveals the COVID vaccines increased your risk of dying
    Chris Johnston submitted a OIA request to the New Zealand health authorities. The official response shows that the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. It killed them.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 4138 Views
  • The project begins with a brief history of bitcoin, starting with its launch in 2009 by a person or group of people known as Satoshi Nakamoto. The main events that shaped the course of development of this digital currency are highlighted.

    How Bitcoin works:
    The technological foundations of bitcoin's work are explained, including blockchain technology and how security and transparency are achieved through it. This also includes mining operations and how bitcoins are issued and traded.

    The impact of bitcoin on the economy:
    Emphasis is placed on the impact of bitcoin on the national and global economies, including issues related to inflation and monetary policies. Examples are given of countries that have adopted Bitcoin or have explored its applications in their economic system.

    Challenges and opportunities:
    The project addresses the challenges faced by bitcoin, such as price fluctuations and security issues. At the same time, opportunities for the development and application of blockchain technology in various fields are reviewed.

    Future developments:
    They talk about the expected future developments of the bitcoin project, including the developments of technologies and technology surrounding it, and how in the future this could affect the global financial system.

    Conclusion:
    The article concludes with a summary of the most important points of the project with the formation and impact on the digital world and the global economy. The conclusions also indicate the importance of understanding this project and following its developments for those who want to stay up to date with digital innovations.
    The project begins with a brief history of bitcoin, starting with its launch in 2009 by a person or group of people known as Satoshi Nakamoto. The main events that shaped the course of development of this digital currency are highlighted. How Bitcoin works: The technological foundations of bitcoin's work are explained, including blockchain technology and how security and transparency are achieved through it. This also includes mining operations and how bitcoins are issued and traded. The impact of bitcoin on the economy: Emphasis is placed on the impact of bitcoin on the national and global economies, including issues related to inflation and monetary policies. Examples are given of countries that have adopted Bitcoin or have explored its applications in their economic system. Challenges and opportunities: The project addresses the challenges faced by bitcoin, such as price fluctuations and security issues. At the same time, opportunities for the development and application of blockchain technology in various fields are reviewed. Future developments: They talk about the expected future developments of the bitcoin project, including the developments of technologies and technology surrounding it, and how in the future this could affect the global financial system. Conclusion: The article concludes with a summary of the most important points of the project with the formation and impact on the digital world and the global economy. The conclusions also indicate the importance of understanding this project and following its developments for those who want to stay up to date with digital innovations.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 2979 Views
  • Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way”

    Michel Chossudovsky
    [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.]

    Introduction

    WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide.

    There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.

    It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022:

    “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates.

    “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC).

    “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

    How could he know this in advance?

    “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat

    In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data.

    Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”.

    Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense.

    “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.”

    According to Forbes:

    Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″

    300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.”

    A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

    Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic.

    Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux


    Click here to watch the interview.

    “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis

    In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”.

    “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.”

    The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017:

    “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential.

    But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years.

    In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added)

    It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”.

    Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time.

    “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee.

    “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests.

    “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph)

    The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019.

    The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”.

    The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation

    The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201)

    An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation:

    On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions.

    Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.”

    “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme.

    Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added)



    Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X”


    Click here to watch the video.

    Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions

    In a factual nutshell:

    WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.

    There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency.

    On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China.

    The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases.

    All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus.

    In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people.

    In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people.

    In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people.

    The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis.

    The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

    There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences.

    The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank.

    All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment.

    The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system.

    According to David Skripac:

    “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”

    Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as:

    “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

    Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen”

    Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”.

    A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023.

    “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.

    Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.”

    She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective.

    “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” …

    “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.”

    (The Guardian, emphasis added)

    The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus

    “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE).

    Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in:

    The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.

    The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board.

    What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024).

    We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.”

    Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that

    “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”.

    Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic.


    https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud

    It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world.

    When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never.

    Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one.

    Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen.

    So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense!

    Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic.

    Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before?

    You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever.

    I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives!

    Best wishes
    Mike

    👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic” “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way” Michel Chossudovsky [This article was originally published by Global Research. Click here to read this article on Global Research.] Introduction WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus continues to mislead public opinion worldwide. There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease analysts. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation. It was then announced by Bill Gates at the Munich Security Conference in February 2022: “The risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain,” says Bill Gates. “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC). “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said. How could he know this in advance? “Predicting” and “Preparing” for “Disease X”, an Unknown Threat In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros recanted Bill Gates’s premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. Bill Gates is Tedros’s mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”. Bill Gates, Tedros et al. (supported by the WHO “committee of experts”) are now predicting “Disease X” which stems from a hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. “Aside from the fact that it will wreak havoc on humanity, the research team has no idea about the nature of the pathogen.” According to Forbes: Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″ 300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid.” A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, consisting of reports of an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality and morbidity resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”. Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic. Produced by Lux Media. Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux Click here to watch the interview. “Disease X” Alleged Pathogen “Identified” by WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis In early February 2018, a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”. “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017: “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years. In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added) It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted and rewarded by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time. “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee. “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests. “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph) The work of the “expert committee” was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019. The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X” A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”. The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X” “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201) An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions. Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.” “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme. Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (Telegraph, emphasis added) Video: Tedros Stated that Covid was “The First Disease X” Click here to watch the video. Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions In a factual nutshell: WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases. All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people. In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people. The above is a summary. Click here and scroll down for references and analysis. The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire world population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank. All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a worldwide digital ID system. According to David Skripac: “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as: “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).” Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “with an Unknown Pathogen” Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’s numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”. A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023. “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen. Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.” She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective. “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” … “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.” (The Guardian, emphasis added) The “Disease X” “Vaccine” Is to be Developed at the U.K. Ministry of Defense Science and Technology Porter Down Campus “The Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (VDEC) –which has a mandate to develop “The Disease X” Vaccine– is a civilian research entity under Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) managed by the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) headed by Dame Jennifer Harries (DBE). Of significance VDEC which was inaugurated in August 2023 is located in: The “Defence Science and Technology Laboratory” [Dstl] at Porton Down, Wiltshire, which is one of the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense’s most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons. The UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA) has initiated a project in global and country-level “Integrated Disease Surveillance” funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A representative of the Gates Foundation is a member of UKHSA’s Advisory Board. What is required is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024). We also call for the immediate cancellation of the Covid-19 “Killer Vaccine.” Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Click here to read Steve Watson’s article titled World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic. https://open.substack.com/pub/michelchossudovsky/p/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic-treaty-fraud It is surely obvious to any dispassionate observer that this coalition of the powerful intends to spring some health crisis upon the people of the world. When have the rich and powerful given a care about the health of poor people? That’ll be never. Pandemics are not a thing. Think back through your life. How many pandemics have there been? Covid wasn’t one. The Spanish flu nonsense wasn’t one. None of the flu like illnesses reported in the 1960s were one. I don’t believe there has ever been even one. Scary infectious diseases are only scary until you stumble across medical research literature going back as far a century and more, in which numerous, serious clinical research studies were set up to detect and measure symptomatic transmission (causing a well person to fall ill with similar symptoms to those of the donor person). Try as they might, that didn’t happen. Contagion in this specific scenario (acute respiratory diseases) does not happen. So when they come at you with the next bunch of lies, try to spot the lies as the mealy mouthed, wet, TV presenters talk nonsense! Then to this “100 day vaccine” idiocy. As you really going to roll your sleeve up and receive an injection of mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles? They will be toxic. Do note that Porton Down, the government’s own formerly named Chemical Defence Establishment, has been tapped as the people to do it! Wouldn’t you want to work with the people who claimed to have whipped up by far the world record speed of vaccine R&D & product delivery? They cut down the time needed by 90%. Surely you’d give the task to those people? So they’re giving it to a military group who haven’t ever done anything like this before? You don’t need a vaccine. Even if everything else was true, it’s out of the question to rustle up a jab in 100 days. Impossible to do it in under several yearrs which, by the way, is FAR FAR longer than the length of time that it’s claimed for the longest lasting pandemic, ever. I hope this helps you to respond appropriately, before the next nonsense arrives! Best wishes Mike 👉 https://t.me/DrMikeYeadon https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/hypothetical-disease-x-who-pandemic.html
    OPEN.SUBSTACK.COM
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty Is a Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    A “vaccine” for a non-existent hypothetical “Disease X” is slated to to be developed at one of UK Ministry of Defense's most secretive and controversial military research facilities specializing in the testing of biological and chemical weapons.
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 15811 Views
  • What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’ | VT Foreign Policy
    February 2, 2024
    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

    What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-no-not-new-nazis-by-zahir-ebrahim.html

    Zahir Ebrahim

    January 17, 2009*

    Background Summary

    This is Part-3 of the series of articles on Israel-Palestine I composed especially for VT. Part-3 is my ongoing exposure of what’s taboo in Western press due to the fact that Israel is the new ruling state in the world. Ruling state has the following definition: a state that dictates to the world including through its surrogates and client states, but none can dictate to it; a ruling state does whatever it wants and its slavish clients and prostitute states support it in every way imaginable.

    Part-1 was: Israel’s Barbarianism – How can Israel get away with it? ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/press-release-israels-barbarianism );

    Part-2 was: 100 Years of Balfour Declaration and Continuing ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/100-years-of-balfour-declaration-and-continuing/ ).

    This third part was previously published in 2009 during Israel’s inhuman assault on Gaza… This latest incarnation assault on Gaza which began on Oct 7, 2023, is in continuation of the long held Zionist premeditated policy of Palestinian population transfer, ethnic cleansing, intermingled with genocidal impulses whenever the holy Jews can get away with it. This latest barbarian assault by Israel was based on the pretext that was an outright MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose), not a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), nor a “surprise attack” as Israel and her obliging Western surrogates have propagandized, duly echoed by their Uncle Toms and Aunty Thomases throughout the world’s mass media.

    I called it as such on October 8, 2023, the moment I heard about it in the news, in a series of private emails to some friends and journalists, including VT’s own venerable senior editor and my internet-confrere in common cause of justice of many years, Dr. Kevin Barrett, who wrote on VT on October 30, 2023: Why I Support Hamas – And you should too ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/10/why-i-support-hamas/ ).

    Not being a “Doctor” of anything, nor a college professor, as far as I perceive matters as a common man who can reason based on empiricism, and who is not given to presuppositions based on whim, dogma, tribal or religious and cultural affiliations, Hamas is complicit in, or actual part of, this MIHOP operation of Israel. In other words, Hamas was either made a useful idiot by Israel, or is still an asset of Israel just as it was at its inception. The Oct 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, was no more a surprise attack on Israel than Pearl Harbor was on the United States. It was a calculated premeditated creation of legal pretext for what followed. The difference only being MIHOP vs LIHOP. 9/11 too was a MIHOP operation by the United States to create legal pretext using a range of patsies and side shows. Israel did the same. Subsequently, more evidence that Israel may have even had other pecuniary motivations to attack Gaza have been revealed in an oped by Kevin Barrett himself on January 25, 2024, leaving his already dubious support of Hamas even more absurd and unexplainable as to how did Israel get Hamas to become its patsy to enable realize that motivation : Israel Committing Genocide to Steal Gaza’s Gas? – Al-Jazeera cites Western alternative media outlets Global Research and Mondoweiss (see https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/israel-committing-genocide-to-steal-gazas-gas/ ). Contrary to what Jews might think, not all goy are dumb ass.

    The hair-splitting by the goy of Jews being different from Zionists, is the stupidity of goy to not face up to empirical realism. The actual reality is even more perverse. The Jews and Zionism are in fact being used by the same oligarchic powers that used Militant Islam, before that Soviet Communism and Nazi Socialism, to create world wars and controlled conflict, pitting plebe human beings – the common rank and file – against each other under the sound of trumpets. This will be the topics of subsequent parts – all of which are already deeply researched essays in my books (see links for Part 1 & 2) – how the Jews themselves have been indoctrinated into becoming the useful idiots of Zionism, and just as diabolically harvested to construct a single one-world global empire of the oligarchy as other patsies. But as Zionist zombie mass murderers, useful idiots or not, they still cannot escape culpability any more than the Nazis could, nor Germany could, but only under victor’s justice. The honest conscionable Jew who distances himself / herself from the primacy of Israel and settler colonialism of Zionism are part of us goyem in principle as human beings first. The rest are enemies of humankind no different than any villainous mass murderers, including those aliased as Muslims under the imperial label of Militant Islam manufactured by empire as a Hegelian Dialectic (see my book: Hijacking The Holy Qur’an And Its Religion Islam – Muslims and Imperial Mobilization, 2nd Edition 2015, https://tinyurl.com/Islam2e ).

    The fact that the Jews of Israel under Zionism are indoctrinated trigger-pullers of oligarchic masters behind the scenes absolves neither them nor their godfathers who own Israel outright, from their genocidal crimes against humanity. Palestinians are just the canary in the coal mine. The same fate lies in store for all Untermensch on the planet in every country on the new road to The Great Reset that is birth-panging a new global dystopic world order to be administered from the New Ruling State of the world. Not by the Jews of Prophet Moses. But by the atheist
    satanic Khazarian financial Oligarchy with pretenses of being God’s Chosen People from the Abrahamic clan. Yeah, not a dumb goy! And neither should you be taken in by the ploy to make goy stupid and fight amongst ourselves. All that’s needed is a bit of commonsense and the ability to reason away from attractive authority figures. Not college degrees.

    2009 Article Begins

    In reference to the short article by Alan Hart “The New Nazis<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.alanhart.net/the-new-nazis/>” in which he described the mechanics of a possible “Zionist Holocaust” upon the Palestinians, reaching the somewhat belated realization that it was high time that he called the Israelis by their real nom de guerre, “the New Nazis”, I would say he is sadly mistaken in his choice of labels. The Israeli Jews are not the New Nazis. It is convenient to associate them to something abhorrent but irrelevant. What relevance does Nazism have today? None whatsoever. But the more direct relevance to the Settling of the United States of America is not to be drawn – for that might be a wee bit too relevant and uncomfortable.

    President George W. Bush for once had truthfully blurted out the grotesque reality-space while on the 60th birthday-bash visit to Zionistan

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html

    “Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed.”

    The core-principle being, the outright elimination of indigenous peoples, wherein, “the very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan – mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.”

    The Pious self-righteous Jews of Israel, atheist or orthodox, don’t intend to make the ‘Sherman mistake’ in Palestine! They have noted it time and again that “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel … Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.”

    But the Jews’ narrative of Holocaust is what remains the most profound and sacred obsession of the ‘civilized’ West – a perennial “mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed.”. And for their detractors, it is merely the New Nazism – when the tortuous reality is located in Washington, in London, in the Pentagon, in EU, and in the massive control of world’s financial systems through the international banksters that is held in the hands of world Jewry!

    So isn’t it rather convenient not to draw upon any of these associations and linkages of support for Israel which is what, in fact, props up that pariah state in Palestine? I must admit I am sometimes guilty of sugar-coating the Zionists as the ‘New Nazis’ myself. But that’s an emotional response based on years of watching Hollywood World War II movies where such labeling of a suitably demonized foe simply falls into the consciousness for associating anything grotesque. A more intellectually honest and empirically accurate depiction of Zionism however, and its power base among the world Jewry, renders an entirely new meaning to the now hackneyed term ‘banality of evil’. The support network of Israel is systemic enough, and its aspirations endemic enough, to make Hannah Arendth turn in her grave.

    The second glossing over by Alan Hart is in his expression of fear of the Zionist Holocaust upon the Palestinians, where he unwittingly absolves the world Jewry of their direct involvement with Israel: “unless enough Israelis and the Jews of the world are prepared to acknowledge that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews.”
    That statement has no basis in reality. It is not just “Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews”, but the direct and active participation of most of world Jewry in the Israel project.
    Here are two short excerpts from two very different perspectives. They explain the afore-stated point much better than I can today, emotionally drained that I am watching the systematic and deliberate killing of children, women, men, and anything that lives, in Gaza which conjures up the image of the gatling-gun set loose upon the defenseless native American Indians by Sherman.
    The first excerpt is from the 1996 memoirs of Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M), Director of ISI, Pakistan, titled ‘Profiles of Intelligence’, Chapter 3, pages 45-46. Under the subsection titled “Why did the ISI not intervene to save Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto if they knew he was being murdered”, the top spymaster of Pakistan during ZAB’s and his executioner General Zia ul Haq’s era, writes (and do pay particular attention to the last paragraph, emphasis mine):

    Begin Excerpt (Profiles of Intelligence)

    … It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction:

    One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power.

    Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price.

    Three, in order to bring the taking of appropriate counter measures within the ambit of ISI functions, a revolutionary reorientation of minds at the national level and of the systems and institutions at the State level becomes imperative. Are we, as a nation, and as we stand today, morally capable of bringing about such a change in our attitudes and our thinking? I believe we are not. I also believe that the day we acquire the capability, it will mark the end of all our problems, troubles and misfortunes. We will learn to manage out affairs ourselves.

    Four, probably, the most formidable hurdle in the way to our self-respect and self-reliance is the breed of salable ‘elite’ among us. Specimens of this breed are available in all models and also in abundance. They are active in many deceptive and diversionary forms to ‘strike a deal’ at the cost of our vital national interests. Is there a remedy for this cancerous growth?

    Five, many of our countrymen would not cooperate with the C.I. men. My study on the Israeli Intelligence revealed that, apart from other elements, a major factor for their successes has been the cooperation that a Mossad man gets from the Jews. It claimed that a Jew, in any corner of the world, whenever approached by an Israeli Intelligence agent, would provide him with maximum help and assistance. (pages 45-46)

    End Excerpt

    The second excerpt is from the recent book of a former Israeli Jew who served with the IDF, turned Christian pacifist, Israel Adam Shamir. He writes in the Introduction of his book “Masters of Discourse”, an eloquent politically incorrect exposition of the relationship of the world Jewry to Israel. I had previously quoted from that book in my “Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/letter-to-palestinian-intellectuals.html>”, and here is the excerpt from that letter:

    Begin Excerpt (Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals by Project Humanbeingsfirst)

    This is also why the exponents of Israel entirely control the global discourse on Israel-Palestine throughout the world, even among the ruling elite in the Muslim nations, not to mention among the Palestinian ruling elite itself, none of which reflects either any deep comprehension of the manifest reality on the ground, or the aspirations of the Palestinian masses. These are the Masters of Discourse, and a far more formidable foe across the world’s Jewry than the Palestinians seem to apprehend – as they continually losingly engage the foot soldiers among their antagonists and not the real power-wielders!

    Israel Shamir notes in the English Introduction to his new book

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Discourse-Israel-Shamir/dp/1419692437

    the following veritable truth which must by now be self-evident to all who are able to comprehend the power of the concept of “Der Judenstaadt” on the global Jewish psyche which carries upon its bent backs, the weight of three thousand years of history

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=avh6dkSop0EC&dq=Israel+Shahak&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Lu84cAhe0q&sig=Z2SGKxTq0rxAlKDwnFsSA-eLR7U

    (also Jewish History, Jewish Religion

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198>):

    The new Jewish elite did not fully identify with Russia but carried out a separate policy. It had a fateful effect in 1991, when over 50 % of the Jews (as opposed to 13 % of the Russians) supported the pro-Western coup of President Yeltsin. In 1995, 81% of the Jews voted for pro-Western parties, and only 3% for the Communists (as opposed to 46% of Russians), according to the publication by the Jewish sociologist Dr. Ryvkina in her book, Jews in Post-Soviet Russia (1996).

    In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout. They still do not identify with the goyish America: they force the Congress and the Administration to send billions of dollars to their Israeli offshoot, they forced the US to break Iraq to pieces, and now they are trying to let America fight their war in Iran, though it brings disaster to America. They do discriminate against other Americans; otherwise 60% of the leading positions in the media would not become Jewish.

    Jews of France do not identify with France, either. “Their identification with Israel is so strong, it overshadows their ties to the country they live in,” writes Daniel Ben Simon in Haaretz. This dual loyalty was made very clear to me by a Jewish doctor in Nice. “If the choice is between Israel and France, there’s no question I feel closer to Israel,” he said, without a moment’s hesitation. He was born and bred in France; he went to medical school in France; his patients are French; he speaks French with his wife and children. But in the depths of his heart, he feels a greater affinity with the Jewish state.

    In Palestine, the Jews have no compassion for the natives. They travel by segregated roads, study in segregated schools, while a Jew consumes ten times more water resources than a goy, and has an income seven times higher. Thus, the Jewish separateness remains a fact of life for many Jewish communities.

    While the Palestinian intellectual and revolutionary need not adopt the discourse of European anti-Semitism – cousins as they are of their oppressors – they do need to comprehend the immense psychological and sociological power of that discourse, and the power of the world Jewry in sustaining the Jewish State because of it. The significance of this statement is made evident by the fact that this discourse prevailed upon not only the very Evangelical Christian American President George W. Bush, but also the Christian Prime Minister of Germany, Angela Merkel, the Christian Prime Minister of France, Nicholas Sarkozy**, the Roman Catholic Christian Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and the Christian Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, along with the Queen of England, representing the world’s most powerful Christian coalition of Western Hegemons, to pay homage to Jewish Zionistan on May 15, 2008

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3540751,00.html.

    None showed up, even in false courtesy, to offer their feeble condolences for the Nakba to what remains of the Palestinian Reservations!

    End Excerpt

    And this state of affairs was finally admitted to by the Palestinian journalist based in Ramallah, Khalid Amayreh. Writing from Ramallah for the Palestinian Information Center, he was finally forced to acknowledge the grotesque reality of this Jewish power in his article “When it comes to Israel , Europe is hypocritical, submissive and obsequious

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://tinyurl.com/4n3rxb.

    Excerpting from the same Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals, where I had quoted Khalid Amayreh:

    Begin Excerpt

    In comparison to the madman in the White House, Europe may look less bellicose, less confrontational and less unreasonable in its overall approach to contentious international issues. However, when the issue is the Palestinian plight, the US and Europe look very much like tweedledee and tweedledum.

    In recent months and years, European leaders from Germany’s Merkel, to France’s Sarkozy, to Britain’s Brown and Italy’s Berlusconi were shamelessly pandering to Israeli savagery to the extent of embracing relentless Israeli criminality against the Palestinian people , including the ongoing genocidal ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip.

    True, the European tone of speech often sounds less odious especially when compared with the unmitigated saber-rattling coming from Washington. But, in the final analysis, the outcome in both cases is similar. In fact, the US and Europe collaborate and even collude to effect the same unethical goals often by playing the old game of Mutt and Jeff (good cop and bad cop), with their persecuted victims, whether in Palestine, Sudan or Iran.

    End Excerpt

    The points being made here are admittedly nuanced and subtle, but crucial and fundamental nevertheless in correctly identifying the monster that feeds on Blood-Sacrifice of the Palestinians. The Zionists are not following in the footsteps of the Nazis, although they are certainly using many of the Nazi tactics. They are following in the veritable footsteps of the United States of America, and are religiously principled in their not making the ‘Sherman mistake’. This is empirically so blatantly obvious that even the conscionable among the Israeli Jews reluctantly admit it. The late Tanya Reinhart, professor of linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted in her 2002 book “How to end the war of 1948

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-How-End-1948/dp/1583225382 :

    “The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel’s actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states.”

    The world Jewry is in on the game of conquest, in many different guises, with many different incantations of power, and with full spectrum political and financial support. The biggest support to Israel comes from the United States Congress and the Federal Government, financially, politically, militarily, as well as legally. Just witness this mind numbing Antiboycott Compliance

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

    bureau especially constructed for Israel’s sake. It states:

    “The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.”

    So what is this red herring of calling Israelis “The New Nazis”, without also calling its parent the Fourth Reich? Further evidence of sophisticated and rather devilish support of Israel may be gleaned in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “The endless trial of red herrings

    https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html “.

    The day the World Jewry asserts that they will live equitably in a single-state with the indigenous Palestinians, with restoration of full right of return to the displaced and their progeny, and fair compensation for pain and suffering that is due all the native populations of Palestine and their progeny for cataclysmic upheaval inflicted upon them since the first World Jewish Congress meeting in Basle Switzerland in 1896, then that very fine day, the Shoah of the Palestinians will miraculously end.

    Such a fair and just articulation of demand is more than the mere recognition of great wrongs being done the Palestinians. It is of no less measure, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, than what the Jews have themselves extracted with their specialized and incomprehensible Holocaust narrative from the world.

    Let the Palestinian people not be sold short by those who claim to support them – even if they be Palestinian themselves! Their ruling elite has already sold the beleaguered people down the drain of ineptitude and corruption. Let their friends, unwittingly, not do the same.

    Thank you.

    * Footnote: Excerpts from this article first appeared as comment on January 18, 2009 on former Pakistani-Canadian journalist Abidullah Jan’s famous (now defunct) dictatorshipwatch.com:

    https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf>



    ATTENTION READERS

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

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

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/02/whats-the-difference-between-jews-and-zionists-no-no-not-the-new-nazis/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/whats-difference-between-jews-and.html
    What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’ | VT Foreign Policy February 2, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’ https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-no-not-new-nazis-by-zahir-ebrahim.html Zahir Ebrahim January 17, 2009* Background Summary This is Part-3 of the series of articles on Israel-Palestine I composed especially for VT. Part-3 is my ongoing exposure of what’s taboo in Western press due to the fact that Israel is the new ruling state in the world. Ruling state has the following definition: a state that dictates to the world including through its surrogates and client states, but none can dictate to it; a ruling state does whatever it wants and its slavish clients and prostitute states support it in every way imaginable. Part-1 was: Israel’s Barbarianism – How can Israel get away with it? ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/11/press-release-israels-barbarianism ); Part-2 was: 100 Years of Balfour Declaration and Continuing ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/100-years-of-balfour-declaration-and-continuing/ ). This third part was previously published in 2009 during Israel’s inhuman assault on Gaza… This latest incarnation assault on Gaza which began on Oct 7, 2023, is in continuation of the long held Zionist premeditated policy of Palestinian population transfer, ethnic cleansing, intermingled with genocidal impulses whenever the holy Jews can get away with it. This latest barbarian assault by Israel was based on the pretext that was an outright MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose), not a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose), nor a “surprise attack” as Israel and her obliging Western surrogates have propagandized, duly echoed by their Uncle Toms and Aunty Thomases throughout the world’s mass media. I called it as such on October 8, 2023, the moment I heard about it in the news, in a series of private emails to some friends and journalists, including VT’s own venerable senior editor and my internet-confrere in common cause of justice of many years, Dr. Kevin Barrett, who wrote on VT on October 30, 2023: Why I Support Hamas – And you should too ( https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2023/10/why-i-support-hamas/ ). Not being a “Doctor” of anything, nor a college professor, as far as I perceive matters as a common man who can reason based on empiricism, and who is not given to presuppositions based on whim, dogma, tribal or religious and cultural affiliations, Hamas is complicit in, or actual part of, this MIHOP operation of Israel. In other words, Hamas was either made a useful idiot by Israel, or is still an asset of Israel just as it was at its inception. The Oct 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, was no more a surprise attack on Israel than Pearl Harbor was on the United States. It was a calculated premeditated creation of legal pretext for what followed. The difference only being MIHOP vs LIHOP. 9/11 too was a MIHOP operation by the United States to create legal pretext using a range of patsies and side shows. Israel did the same. Subsequently, more evidence that Israel may have even had other pecuniary motivations to attack Gaza have been revealed in an oped by Kevin Barrett himself on January 25, 2024, leaving his already dubious support of Hamas even more absurd and unexplainable as to how did Israel get Hamas to become its patsy to enable realize that motivation : Israel Committing Genocide to Steal Gaza’s Gas? – Al-Jazeera cites Western alternative media outlets Global Research and Mondoweiss (see https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/israel-committing-genocide-to-steal-gazas-gas/ ). Contrary to what Jews might think, not all goy are dumb ass. The hair-splitting by the goy of Jews being different from Zionists, is the stupidity of goy to not face up to empirical realism. The actual reality is even more perverse. The Jews and Zionism are in fact being used by the same oligarchic powers that used Militant Islam, before that Soviet Communism and Nazi Socialism, to create world wars and controlled conflict, pitting plebe human beings – the common rank and file – against each other under the sound of trumpets. This will be the topics of subsequent parts – all of which are already deeply researched essays in my books (see links for Part 1 & 2) – how the Jews themselves have been indoctrinated into becoming the useful idiots of Zionism, and just as diabolically harvested to construct a single one-world global empire of the oligarchy as other patsies. But as Zionist zombie mass murderers, useful idiots or not, they still cannot escape culpability any more than the Nazis could, nor Germany could, but only under victor’s justice. The honest conscionable Jew who distances himself / herself from the primacy of Israel and settler colonialism of Zionism are part of us goyem in principle as human beings first. The rest are enemies of humankind no different than any villainous mass murderers, including those aliased as Muslims under the imperial label of Militant Islam manufactured by empire as a Hegelian Dialectic (see my book: Hijacking The Holy Qur’an And Its Religion Islam – Muslims and Imperial Mobilization, 2nd Edition 2015, https://tinyurl.com/Islam2e ). The fact that the Jews of Israel under Zionism are indoctrinated trigger-pullers of oligarchic masters behind the scenes absolves neither them nor their godfathers who own Israel outright, from their genocidal crimes against humanity. Palestinians are just the canary in the coal mine. The same fate lies in store for all Untermensch on the planet in every country on the new road to The Great Reset that is birth-panging a new global dystopic world order to be administered from the New Ruling State of the world. Not by the Jews of Prophet Moses. But by the atheist satanic Khazarian financial Oligarchy with pretenses of being God’s Chosen People from the Abrahamic clan. Yeah, not a dumb goy! And neither should you be taken in by the ploy to make goy stupid and fight amongst ourselves. All that’s needed is a bit of commonsense and the ability to reason away from attractive authority figures. Not college degrees. 2009 Article Begins In reference to the short article by Alan Hart “The New Nazis<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.alanhart.net/the-new-nazis/>” in which he described the mechanics of a possible “Zionist Holocaust” upon the Palestinians, reaching the somewhat belated realization that it was high time that he called the Israelis by their real nom de guerre, “the New Nazis”, I would say he is sadly mistaken in his choice of labels. The Israeli Jews are not the New Nazis. It is convenient to associate them to something abhorrent but irrelevant. What relevance does Nazism have today? None whatsoever. But the more direct relevance to the Settling of the United States of America is not to be drawn – for that might be a wee bit too relevant and uncomfortable. President George W. Bush for once had truthfully blurted out the grotesque reality-space while on the 60th birthday-bash visit to Zionistan https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/05/celebrating-israels-60th-birthday.html “Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed.” The core-principle being, the outright elimination of indigenous peoples, wherein, “the very same army that had recently conquered and occupied the Southern states – led by Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan – mass murdered Indian men, women, and children during the winters, when families would be together, with massive Gatling gun and artillery fire. In a letter to his son a year before he died (1889), Sherman expressed his regret that his armies did not murder every last Indian in North America.” The Pious self-righteous Jews of Israel, atheist or orthodox, don’t intend to make the ‘Sherman mistake’ in Palestine! They have noted it time and again that “We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel … Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” But the Jews’ narrative of Holocaust is what remains the most profound and sacred obsession of the ‘civilized’ West – a perennial “mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed.”. And for their detractors, it is merely the New Nazism – when the tortuous reality is located in Washington, in London, in the Pentagon, in EU, and in the massive control of world’s financial systems through the international banksters that is held in the hands of world Jewry! So isn’t it rather convenient not to draw upon any of these associations and linkages of support for Israel which is what, in fact, props up that pariah state in Palestine? I must admit I am sometimes guilty of sugar-coating the Zionists as the ‘New Nazis’ myself. But that’s an emotional response based on years of watching Hollywood World War II movies where such labeling of a suitably demonized foe simply falls into the consciousness for associating anything grotesque. A more intellectually honest and empirically accurate depiction of Zionism however, and its power base among the world Jewry, renders an entirely new meaning to the now hackneyed term ‘banality of evil’. The support network of Israel is systemic enough, and its aspirations endemic enough, to make Hannah Arendth turn in her grave. The second glossing over by Alan Hart is in his expression of fear of the Zionist Holocaust upon the Palestinians, where he unwittingly absolves the world Jewry of their direct involvement with Israel: “unless enough Israelis and the Jews of the world are prepared to acknowledge that a terrible wrong was done to the Palestinians by Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews.” That statement has no basis in reality. It is not just “Zionism (the few) in the name of all Jews”, but the direct and active participation of most of world Jewry in the Israel project. Here are two short excerpts from two very different perspectives. They explain the afore-stated point much better than I can today, emotionally drained that I am watching the systematic and deliberate killing of children, women, men, and anything that lives, in Gaza which conjures up the image of the gatling-gun set loose upon the defenseless native American Indians by Sherman. The first excerpt is from the 1996 memoirs of Brigadier Syed A. I. Tirmazi, SI (M), Director of ISI, Pakistan, titled ‘Profiles of Intelligence’, Chapter 3, pages 45-46. Under the subsection titled “Why did the ISI not intervene to save Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto if they knew he was being murdered”, the top spymaster of Pakistan during ZAB’s and his executioner General Zia ul Haq’s era, writes (and do pay particular attention to the last paragraph, emphasis mine): Begin Excerpt (Profiles of Intelligence) … It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction: One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power. Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price. Three, in order to bring the taking of appropriate counter measures within the ambit of ISI functions, a revolutionary reorientation of minds at the national level and of the systems and institutions at the State level becomes imperative. Are we, as a nation, and as we stand today, morally capable of bringing about such a change in our attitudes and our thinking? I believe we are not. I also believe that the day we acquire the capability, it will mark the end of all our problems, troubles and misfortunes. We will learn to manage out affairs ourselves. Four, probably, the most formidable hurdle in the way to our self-respect and self-reliance is the breed of salable ‘elite’ among us. Specimens of this breed are available in all models and also in abundance. They are active in many deceptive and diversionary forms to ‘strike a deal’ at the cost of our vital national interests. Is there a remedy for this cancerous growth? Five, many of our countrymen would not cooperate with the C.I. men. My study on the Israeli Intelligence revealed that, apart from other elements, a major factor for their successes has been the cooperation that a Mossad man gets from the Jews. It claimed that a Jew, in any corner of the world, whenever approached by an Israeli Intelligence agent, would provide him with maximum help and assistance. (pages 45-46) End Excerpt The second excerpt is from the recent book of a former Israeli Jew who served with the IDF, turned Christian pacifist, Israel Adam Shamir. He writes in the Introduction of his book “Masters of Discourse”, an eloquent politically incorrect exposition of the relationship of the world Jewry to Israel. I had previously quoted from that book in my “Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/06/letter-to-palestinian-intellectuals.html>”, and here is the excerpt from that letter: Begin Excerpt (Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals by Project Humanbeingsfirst) This is also why the exponents of Israel entirely control the global discourse on Israel-Palestine throughout the world, even among the ruling elite in the Muslim nations, not to mention among the Palestinian ruling elite itself, none of which reflects either any deep comprehension of the manifest reality on the ground, or the aspirations of the Palestinian masses. These are the Masters of Discourse, and a far more formidable foe across the world’s Jewry than the Palestinians seem to apprehend – as they continually losingly engage the foot soldiers among their antagonists and not the real power-wielders! Israel Shamir notes in the English Introduction to his new book https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Masters-Discourse-Israel-Shamir/dp/1419692437 the following veritable truth which must by now be self-evident to all who are able to comprehend the power of the concept of “Der Judenstaadt” on the global Jewish psyche which carries upon its bent backs, the weight of three thousand years of history https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=avh6dkSop0EC&dq=Israel+Shahak&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=Lu84cAhe0q&sig=Z2SGKxTq0rxAlKDwnFsSA-eLR7U (also Jewish History, Jewish Religion https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Eastern/dp/0745308198>): The new Jewish elite did not fully identify with Russia but carried out a separate policy. It had a fateful effect in 1991, when over 50 % of the Jews (as opposed to 13 % of the Russians) supported the pro-Western coup of President Yeltsin. In 1995, 81% of the Jews voted for pro-Western parties, and only 3% for the Communists (as opposed to 46% of Russians), according to the publication by the Jewish sociologist Dr. Ryvkina in her book, Jews in Post-Soviet Russia (1996). In ever-expanding America, the Jews did not have to kill or remove the native elites; they became its important part, controlling discourse and wielding considerable financial clout. They still do not identify with the goyish America: they force the Congress and the Administration to send billions of dollars to their Israeli offshoot, they forced the US to break Iraq to pieces, and now they are trying to let America fight their war in Iran, though it brings disaster to America. They do discriminate against other Americans; otherwise 60% of the leading positions in the media would not become Jewish. Jews of France do not identify with France, either. “Their identification with Israel is so strong, it overshadows their ties to the country they live in,” writes Daniel Ben Simon in Haaretz. This dual loyalty was made very clear to me by a Jewish doctor in Nice. “If the choice is between Israel and France, there’s no question I feel closer to Israel,” he said, without a moment’s hesitation. He was born and bred in France; he went to medical school in France; his patients are French; he speaks French with his wife and children. But in the depths of his heart, he feels a greater affinity with the Jewish state. In Palestine, the Jews have no compassion for the natives. They travel by segregated roads, study in segregated schools, while a Jew consumes ten times more water resources than a goy, and has an income seven times higher. Thus, the Jewish separateness remains a fact of life for many Jewish communities. While the Palestinian intellectual and revolutionary need not adopt the discourse of European anti-Semitism – cousins as they are of their oppressors – they do need to comprehend the immense psychological and sociological power of that discourse, and the power of the world Jewry in sustaining the Jewish State because of it. The significance of this statement is made evident by the fact that this discourse prevailed upon not only the very Evangelical Christian American President George W. Bush, but also the Christian Prime Minister of Germany, Angela Merkel, the Christian Prime Minister of France, Nicholas Sarkozy**, the Roman Catholic Christian Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, and the Christian Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, along with the Queen of England, representing the world’s most powerful Christian coalition of Western Hegemons, to pay homage to Jewish Zionistan on May 15, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3540751,00.html. None showed up, even in false courtesy, to offer their feeble condolences for the Nakba to what remains of the Palestinian Reservations! End Excerpt And this state of affairs was finally admitted to by the Palestinian journalist based in Ramallah, Khalid Amayreh. Writing from Ramallah for the Palestinian Information Center, he was finally forced to acknowledge the grotesque reality of this Jewish power in his article “When it comes to Israel , Europe is hypocritical, submissive and obsequious https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://tinyurl.com/4n3rxb. Excerpting from the same Open Letter to Palestinian Intellectuals, where I had quoted Khalid Amayreh: Begin Excerpt In comparison to the madman in the White House, Europe may look less bellicose, less confrontational and less unreasonable in its overall approach to contentious international issues. However, when the issue is the Palestinian plight, the US and Europe look very much like tweedledee and tweedledum. In recent months and years, European leaders from Germany’s Merkel, to France’s Sarkozy, to Britain’s Brown and Italy’s Berlusconi were shamelessly pandering to Israeli savagery to the extent of embracing relentless Israeli criminality against the Palestinian people , including the ongoing genocidal ethnic cleansing in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip. True, the European tone of speech often sounds less odious especially when compared with the unmitigated saber-rattling coming from Washington. But, in the final analysis, the outcome in both cases is similar. In fact, the US and Europe collaborate and even collude to effect the same unethical goals often by playing the old game of Mutt and Jeff (good cop and bad cop), with their persecuted victims, whether in Palestine, Sudan or Iran. End Excerpt The points being made here are admittedly nuanced and subtle, but crucial and fundamental nevertheless in correctly identifying the monster that feeds on Blood-Sacrifice of the Palestinians. The Zionists are not following in the footsteps of the Nazis, although they are certainly using many of the Nazi tactics. They are following in the veritable footsteps of the United States of America, and are religiously principled in their not making the ‘Sherman mistake’. This is empirically so blatantly obvious that even the conscionable among the Israeli Jews reluctantly admit it. The late Tanya Reinhart, professor of linguistics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted in her 2002 book “How to end the war of 1948 https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-How-End-1948/dp/1583225382 : “The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba – the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time – 1,380,000 people – were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel’s actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states.” The world Jewry is in on the game of conquest, in many different guises, with many different incantations of power, and with full spectrum political and financial support. The biggest support to Israel comes from the United States Congress and the Federal Government, financially, politically, militarily, as well as legally. Just witness this mind numbing Antiboycott Compliance https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm bureau especially constructed for Israel’s sake. It states: “The Bureau is charged with administering and enforcing the Antiboycott Laws under the Export Administration Act. Those laws discourage, and in some circumstances, prohibit U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel sponsored by the Arab League, and certain Moslem countries, including complying with certain requests for information designed to verify compliance with the boycott. Compliance with such requests may be prohibited by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and may be reportable to the Bureau.” So what is this red herring of calling Israelis “The New Nazis”, without also calling its parent the Fourth Reich? Further evidence of sophisticated and rather devilish support of Israel may be gleaned in Project Humanbeingsfirst’s report “The endless trial of red herrings https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2007/03/endless-red-herrings.html “. The day the World Jewry asserts that they will live equitably in a single-state with the indigenous Palestinians, with restoration of full right of return to the displaced and their progeny, and fair compensation for pain and suffering that is due all the native populations of Palestine and their progeny for cataclysmic upheaval inflicted upon them since the first World Jewish Congress meeting in Basle Switzerland in 1896, then that very fine day, the Shoah of the Palestinians will miraculously end. Such a fair and just articulation of demand is more than the mere recognition of great wrongs being done the Palestinians. It is of no less measure, both quantitatively as well as qualitatively, than what the Jews have themselves extracted with their specialized and incomprehensible Holocaust narrative from the world. Let the Palestinian people not be sold short by those who claim to support them – even if they be Palestinian themselves! Their ruling elite has already sold the beleaguered people down the drain of ineptitude and corruption. Let their friends, unwittingly, not do the same. Thank you. * Footnote: Excerpts from this article first appeared as comment on January 18, 2009 on former Pakistani-Canadian journalist Abidullah Jan’s famous (now defunct) dictatorshipwatch.com: https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf<https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/https://sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/cacheof-the-undeniable-nazism-and-holocaust-in-our-age-dw-abidullahjan-zahir-comment-january182009.pdf> ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/02/whats-the-difference-between-jews-and-zionists-no-no-not-the-new-nazis/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/02/whats-difference-between-jews-and.html
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    What’s The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the ‘New Nazis’
    What's The Difference Between Jews and Zionists: No, No – Not the 'New Nazis' https://web.archive.org/web/20191206190948/http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-no-not-new-nazis-by-zahir-ebrahim.html Zahir Ebrahim January 17, 2009* Background Summary This is Part-3 of the series of articles on Israel-Palestine I composed especially for VT. Part-3 is my ongoing exposure of what's taboo in Western press due to the fact that Israel...
    0 Comments 0 Shares 26412 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer?
    There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.

    The Epoch Times

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

    By Dr. Yuhong Dong

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

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

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

    Summary of key facts

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

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

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

    Fewer than 10% of HPV infections are persistent.

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

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

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

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



    Difficulty running clinical trials for the HPV vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Order Now

    Systemic analysis of 12 clinical trials on HPV vaccine efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Swedish nationwide health registry study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    No association found in a U.S. database

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

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

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

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

    Increase in cervical cancer after HPV vaccine rollout: Australia

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

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

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



    Several factors should be considered.

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

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

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

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

    Cervical cancer rates rise after HPV vaccination in the UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Could HPV vaccines make HPV infections worse?

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

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

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

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

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


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-3.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer? There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Dr. Yuhong Dong Editor’s Note: This third installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here. In part 1 and part 2 of this series, we discussed the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and its links to ovarian insufficiency and autoimmune disease. In part 3, we turn to questions regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, and the limitations of relevant clinical trials to detect such a type of effect. Summary of key facts There are multiple obstacles in designing a valid clinical trial to prove the HPV vaccine could prevent cervical cancer, e.g. long lead time, lack of adequate informed consent, complexity between HPV infection and cervical cancer and the negative impact of girls’ sexual behavior, which may worsen the risks of cervical cancer. Most of the HPV’s interventional clinical trials have too short a follow-up time to draw a concrete conclusion. In a large Swedish observational trial, which is treated as the most convincing study to prove the HPV vaccine’s effects on cervical cancer, a few confounding factors were not adequately balanced between the HPV vaccination group versus the unvaccinated group. The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) data and another U.S. study found the HPV vaccine has no effects in reducing cancer rates. Two other registry-based studies in Australia and the U.K. suggest that HPV vaccination is associated with increased cervical cancer rates in certain age groups. Long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer Typically, there is a long period from HPV infection to cervical epithelium abnormalities, then cervical cancer. HPV infections usually last 12–18 months and are eventually cleared by the immune system. Fewer than 10% of HPV infections are persistent. There are two types of precancerous cervical lesions, low-grade or high-grade. Low-grade cervical neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) is usually transient and resolves naturally within one to two years. Only a few persistent infections progress to the clinically meaningful high-grade, CIN2 or 3. Meanwhile, the median time from CIN2/3 to transition to cancer is estimated to be 23.5 years. Among those with weakened immune systems, HPV-related cancer might progress more quickly. In a review of the natural history of HPV infection, the complex pathway from infection to cancer is elucidated, including what is known (purple boxes) and where uncertainty remains (blue boxes). Difficulty running clinical trials for the HPV vaccine Because of the long lead time from HPV infection to cervical cancer, a prospective, randomized controlled trial is not easily designed and feasibly implemented. Lack of long-term follow-up is a common issue for most clinical trials to prove the HPV vaccine’s effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer. For example, a 2007 study found that Gardasil was effective in reducing HPV-associated cervical precancerous lesions rate by 20%. This study followed their subjects for only an average of three years after administration of the first dose. Furthermore, due to the complex uncertainties in the natural history between HPV infection and cervical cancer, it is not easy to claim the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. A randomized trial is designed to balance the two groups — vaccine and placebo — so that any unmeasured confounding variables which might influence the outcome of the trial are distributed evenly. However, if the treatment group knows they got the vaccine, might their behaviors change? Might they be less risk-averse, thinking they have some protection? For example, girls might think they are vaccinated and “protected” from cervical cancer and may tend to initiate sexual intercourse at a younger age or engage in sexual activities with more partners. However, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners and oral contraceptive use are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer in women. In other words, HPV vaccination may offer some protection if offered before sexual activity is initiated, but it may also be associated with increased behavioral risk factors. Whether the benefits of vaccination outweigh any risks is therefore a multifactorial question deserving of careful longitudinal study. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Systemic analysis of 12 clinical trials on HPV vaccine efficacy In 2020, a Queen Mary University study led by Dr. Claire Rees reviewed 12 randomized clinical trials for Cervarix and Gardasil. The investigators found that the trials did not include populations representative of the vaccination target groups, and the trial design may have overstated vaccine efficacy. For example, one trial design generated evidence that the vaccine prevents CIN1. But this is not meaningful because these lesions usually resolve on their own. Furthermore, the study accessed efficacy against low-grade precancerous lesions. But this is not necessarily suggestive of efficacy against the more serious but much less frequent high-grade lesions. Finally, the cytology screenings were done every six to 12 months instead of every 36 months (normal screening interval), meaning the efficacy of the vaccine may have been overestimated, as low-grade lesions could go away spontaneously. All this is to say the HPV vaccine may be effective at preventing more serious lesions which lead to cervical cancer, but it is hard to know because of these poorly designed trials. Nothing is conclusive without a larger trial powered to detect a difference in rates of more serious cervical changes according to the typical screening schedule. However, such a trial has not yet been performed. Swedish nationwide health registry study A nationwide Swedish health registry-based study followed 1,672,983 women for 12 years to assess the association between HPV vaccination and the risk of cervical cancer. In this study, the cumulative incidence of cervical cancer was 47 cases per 100,000 women vaccinated and 94 per 100,000 unvaccinated, suggesting that HPV4 vaccination was associated with a reduced risk of 49 to 63% of invasive cervical cancer at the population level. Even though the results are positive, the study researchers raised a few concerns themselves. First, HPV-vaccinated women could have been generally healthier than unvaccinated women. This is known as “healthy volunteer bias.” Second, a mother’s history of cervical cancer might be associated with both vaccination uptake and underlying risk of cervical cancer as well as screening rates. Third, lifestyle and health factors such as smoking, sexual intercourse at a young age, multiple sexual partners, oral contraceptive use and obesity are reportedly associated with the risk of cervical cancer. These factors have not been thoroughly analyzed by this study and could have contributed to the data. Furthermore, parental education level and annual household income level may be interconnected with lifestyle factors such as smoking status. Strengths of this study include its size, duration and outcome of interest being invasive cancer, not low-grade lesions. However, it is impossible to exclude the relationship between lifestyle factors, vaccination uptake and cervical cancer. Only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) could balance the two groups on these unmeasured — but related — risk factors. However even if the risk factors (sexual behaviors) are fully balanced at baseline with an RCT, it is hard to keep them still balanced during the whole study course after HPV vaccination. No association found in a U.S. database Meanwhile, researchers found no association between vaccination and cancer mortality in the U.S. According to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER program, the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer before Gardasil’s introduction in the U.S. had been steadily declining for years and, in 2006, was 2.4 per 100,000 women. The data from 2016–2020 is 2.2 per 100,000 women — essentially unchanged. In a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults aged 20–59 years, among 9,891 participants, the researchers did not find an association between HPV vaccination and HPV-related cancers. Increase in cervical cancer after HPV vaccine rollout: Australia In Australia, government data similarly reveal an increase in cervical cancer rates in certain age groups of women following the implementation of the Gardasil vaccine. Thirteen years after Gardasil was recommended for teenagers and young adults, there has been a 30% increase in 30- to 34-year-old women (4.9 cases/100,000 compared to 6.6 cases/100,000 in 2020) being diagnosed with cervical cancer. Even though the rates decreased in other age groups, the abnormal increase in the 30–34 age group needs an explanation. Several factors should be considered. First, this database does not tell the stage of cancer. More cancer diagnosed at an early stage may result in a cancer-rate increase. Second, decreasing cancer rates could be caused by declines in screening rates, perhaps due to the pandemic and/or a reluctance to get tested. Third, Australia has an increasing proportion of immigrants from South Asia, and these cultural factors may influence the cervical cancer-screening rate. A study of South Asian women living in Australia found that almost half had never had a previous screening test. Cervical cancer rates rise after HPV vaccination in the UK In the U.K., HPV vaccination was introduced in 2008 for girls aged 12–13 with catch-up for those aged 14–18. Many expected cervical cancer rates in women aged 20–24 to fall by 2014 as the vaccinated cohorts entered their 20s. However, in 2016 national statistics showed a worrying and substantial 70% increase in the rate of cervical cancer at ages 20 to 24 (i.e. from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014). While the author would consider it to be too early to draw conclusions regarding vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, this merits further study. Accordingly, an analysis was conducted in the U.K. in 2018 in response to public interest regarding this increase in cervical cancer. Researchers from Queen Mary University and King’s College London found that it was attributable to an increase in the proportion of women first screened at age 24.5 years. The increase was limited to stage I cervical cancer. But there was no evidence of a lack of screening leading to increasing rates. While the researchers considered it too early to conclude vaccine efficacy in protecting against cancer, these findings merit further study. Could HPV vaccines make HPV infections worse? Besides the vaccine’s unclear effectiveness in cancer prevention, studies further suggest the suppression of the HPV strains targeted by the vaccine may induce more virulent strains. For example, a 2015 study found that vaccinated young adult women had a higher prevalence of high-risk HPV types other than types 16 and 18, putting them at risk for more aggressive cervical and other HPV-related cancers. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-3-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-3.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 3: Can It Prevent Cervical Cancer?
    There are no valid studies showing the vaccine for the human papillomavirus, or HPV, prevents cervical cancer. However, there are studies suggesting the vaccine could increase the risk of cancer.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 9958 Views
  • The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    The Epoch Times

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

    By Dr. Yuhong Dong

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

    Summary of key facts

    A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine.
    A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).
    A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis.
    A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination.
    While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm.
    Neurological and autoimmune disorders

    Danish review found increased nervous system disorder

    In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines.

    Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up.

    Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant).

    Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines.

    Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed.

    In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group.

    Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms.

    Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%.

    The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group.

    By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes.

    This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far.

    Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up.

    These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown.

    They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil.

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

    Order Now

    Large studies reveal autoimmune events

    In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden.

    The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses.

    The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events.

    They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29).

    But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility.

    In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44.

    The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis.

    After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding.

    Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten.

    As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after.

    1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases
    Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine
    The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.”

    Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark.

    So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored.

    This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental.

    However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted.

    Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome

    The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France.

    A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves.

    The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%.

    The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.”

    This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported.

    A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations.

    In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population.

    Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination.

    Plausible mechanisms of harm

    Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how?

    Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV.

    According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins.

    This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction.

    The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins.

    The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others.

    Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear.

    The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs.

    Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare.

    The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous.

    HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind.

    Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant.

    An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response.

    The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins).

    In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection.

    The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack.

    Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity

    A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm.

    The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR).

    According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies.

    From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects.

    Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls.

    A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction.

    Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly.

    2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine
    Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity.

    3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines
    A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity
    Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients.

    Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function.

    The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS.

    Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination.

    The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.”

    They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms.

    Universal HPV vaccination called into question

    Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.

    In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials.

    Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer.

    Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels.

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

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

    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/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/

    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. The Epoch Times Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. By Dr. Yuhong Dong Editor’s Note: This second installment in a multi-part series about the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine examines studies that link the vaccines to increased risk of serious neurological and autoimmune disorders. Read Part 1 here. Summary of key facts A Danish review of 79,102 female and 16,568 male subjects, found human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders. Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and complex regional pain syndrome were judged “definitely associated” with the HPV vaccine. A large Danish and Swedish study including nearly 300,000 girls found a significant association between the HPV vaccine and increased rates of Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). A large study including 3 million Danish and Swedish women aged 18 to 44, identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis, or encephalomyelitis. A 2017 French study of over 2.2 million young girls found evidence of a 3.78-fold increased risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). A 2011 U.S. study found nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks post-Gardasil vaccination. While the underlying mechanisms causing these autoimmune reactions are not yet fully understood, some researchers speculate that the sizable overlap in protein sequences between the HPV and the human genome may cause the immune system to attack itself. Others are concerned that the adjuvants (such as aluminum) used to attract the attention of the immune system may be causing harm. Neurological and autoimmune disorders Danish review found increased nervous system disorder In 2020, a group of Danish scientists conducted a systematic review of the overall benefits and harms of HPV vaccines. Twenty-four eligible randomized controlled clinical studies were obtained, with a total of 95,670 participants, mostly women, and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. Almost all controls were given an active comparator vaccine (typically a hepatitis vaccine with a comparable aluminum-based adjuvant). Given that the adjuvant is highly immunogenic by design (it is meant to grab the attention of the immune system), this trial design makes it difficult to detect an excess risk with the HPV vaccines. Without true controls (such as a saline placebo), the real risks of HPV vaccination cannot be accurately assessed. In the vaccine group, 367 cancers were detected, compared to 490 in the comparator group. Younger participants (15 to 29) seemed to benefit more from the vaccine concerning preventing moderate HPV-related intraepithelial neoplasia compared to older participants (ages 21 to 72). Younger participants also had fewer fatal harms. Even though the studies were flawed in their design, at four years post-vaccination, those who had received the HPV vaccines had significantly increased rates of serious nervous system disorders: 49%, as well as general harms totaling 7%. The serious harms that were judged “definitely associated” with HPV vaccines were postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. POTS had a nearly twofold increase in the vaccinated group. By July 2017, only two-thirds of the results from HPV vaccine trials had been published, and only about half the results had been posted, due to manuscript length limitations, reporting bias and confounding journal articles offering a limited view of trial outcomes. This Danish systematic review compiled data from all the HPV trials to offer a summary of the evidence thus far. Nevertheless, the investigators acknowledged that despite three years of work, the limitations of their analysis remained. These included reporting bias, incomplete reporting, data fragmentation and limited trial follow-up. These investigators similarly note that the trials were powered to assess the benefits of HPV vaccination, not rare harms. The degree to which benefits outweigh risks is therefore unknown. They concluded that future research should carefully evaluate the harms following Gardasil 9 compared to Gardasil because the former contains more than double the virus proteins and aluminum-containing adjuvant than the same dose of Gardasil. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now Large studies reveal autoimmune events In 2009, the HPV4 vaccine was integrated into the Danish childhood vaccination program. Since then, two large cohort studies on the HPV4 vaccine adverse events have been carried out using the hospital-based healthcare registries of Denmark and Sweden. The first study in Denmark and Sweden included 296,826 girls aged 10 to 17 who received a total of 696,420 HPV4 vaccine doses. The scientists evaluated rate ratios for autoimmune events and found no significant association for 20 out of 23 events. They found a significant association between the HPV4 vaccine and Bechet’s syndrome (rate ratio 3.37), Raynaud’s disease (1.67) and type 1 diabetes (1.29). But after further review, they concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a causal association, because of the weakness of the signal and the lack of an underlying mechanism to explain biological plausibility. In a second large cohort study, the same team expanded their research to more than 3 million Danish and Swedish adult women aged 18 to 44. The authors identified seven adverse events with statistically significant increased risks following HPV4 vaccination: Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, celiac disease, lupus erythematosus, pemphigus vulgaris, Addison’s disease, Raynaud’s disease and encephalitis, myelitis or encephalomyelitis. After sensitivity analyses, the association between HPV4 vaccination and celiac disease was the most robust finding. Celiac disease is a condition where a person’s immune system attacks the body’s own gut after eating gluten. As the graph below shows, the scientists used two risk periods after HPV4 vaccination: the first 180 days and after. 1 time since first dose HPV4 vaccine coeliac cases Time since the first dose of the HPV4 vaccine for vaccinated coeliac cases in a cohort of Danish and Swedish women. Credit: Journal of Internal Medicine The authors noted that the observed 56% increased risk of celiac disease “was strong, and the increase was strikingly similar in both risk periods after vaccination.” Celiac disease is underdiagnosed in Denmark. So one possible explanation is that vaccination visits allow a chance for this and other conditions to be diagnosed and explored. This explanation suggests that the association between the HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders may be coincidental. However, given the lack of any real control groups in these studies, as well as the growing body of scientific literature from countries around the world showing problems with the HPV vaccine, dismissing these safety signals as coincidence seems short-sighted. Large French study and U.S. VAERS study identify risks of Guillain-Barré Syndrome The concern about autoimmune disease adverse events has contributed to low HPV vaccination uptake in France. A 2017 study of over 2.2 million young girls in France found troubling evidence of a link with Guillain-Barré syndrome. GBS is a condition that arises when our own antibodies attack the nerves. The incidence of GBS was found to be 1.4 per 100,000 person-years among the vaccinated girls compared to 0.4 per 100,000 among the unvaccinated, resulting in an increased risk of GBS of more than 200%. The association appeared to be “particularly marked in the first months following vaccination.” This finding is corroborated by the pattern of adverse reactions reported worldwide. Data from a large number of case reports document similar serious adverse events associated with Gardasil administration, with nervous system disorders of autoimmune origin being the most frequently reported. A 2011 U.S. study found that the estimated weekly reporting rate of post-Gardasil GBS within the first six weeks (6.6 per 10,000,000) was higher than in the general population, and higher than post-Menactra and post-influenza vaccinations. In particular, there was nearly a two-and-a-half to 10 times greater risk of acquiring GBS within six weeks after vaccination, compared to the general population. Additionally, the study found Gardasil vaccination was associated with approximately eight-and-a-half times more emergency department visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disability than the Menactra vaccination. Plausible mechanisms of harm Despite the conflicting data in the scientific literature to date, it is clear that the HPV vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders in susceptible people. But how? Autoimmunity has been reported as a complication of natural infection as well as virus vaccination. This phenomenon has been observed with many viruses, including the Epstein-Barr virus, COVID-19 and HPV. According to a 2019 study, the HPV vaccine contains epitopes — portions of the virus proteins — that overlap with the human proteins. This means that if we develop antibodies to those viruses, we may also generate autoantibodies to our own cells, which is the root cause of autoimmune dysfunction. The study showed that most of the immunoreactive HPV L1 epi­topes are overlapping peptides present in human proteins. The authors explained that this “unexpected enormous size of the peptide overlap between the HPV epitopes and human proteins” is relevant, and may be why a wide variety of autoimmune diseases have been reported post-HPV vaccination, including ovarian failure, systemic lupus erythematosus, breast cancer and sudden death, among others. Why some people develop these conditions and others do not is unclear. The authors suggest that vaccines should target the few peptides that do not overlap with human proteins, but which do overlap with the other HPVs. Despite this overlap and the potential for causing autoimmune disease, medical doctors usually ignore or dismiss the connection. We are told that these diseases are rare. The human body has something called immune tolerance. This protects a person’s immune system against attacking itself. Therefore, HPV infection is also “immune tolerated,” which means it lays dormant for some time until it becomes cancerous. HPV vaccination was actually designed with this immune tolerance in mind. Given the human body’s built-in defenses against autoimmune conditions, vaccinology requires an immunogenic catalyst to get the body’s attention. This is the job of an adjuvant. An adjuvant is an ingredient used in a vaccine that the body recognizes as foreign. It is added to vaccines so that the body will mount a stronger immune response. The idea is that in attacking the adjuvant, the body will also recognize other vaccine ingredients (in this case, purified HPV proteins). In addition, the antigen dose is much higher than in natural infections and the capsids in the vaccine are directly exposed to systemic immune responses as opposed to the virus staying relatively hidden within the natural barrier of the skin following infection. The vaccine was well-designed to trigger an immune response, but this advantage may come at a cost: Generating antibodies to HPV proteins through vaccination could, theoretically, set the stage for an autoimmune attack. Link between HPV-vaccine-associated nervous system dysfunction and autoimmunity A December 2022 Danish and German study was designed to elucidate a possible mechanism of harm. The lead author, Dr. Jesper Mehlsen, a specialist in treating autoimmune conditions, noted that the HPV major capsid L1s antigen resembles human autonomic nerve receptors, including G-protein coupled receptors (GPCR). According to the researchers, in the past several years, case series of suspected vaccination side effects have pointed to three disease entities: POTS, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and complex regional pain syndrome. These syndromes may be associated with neuroendocrine GPCR antibodies. From 2011 to 2018, researchers saw 845 patients (839 females, six males) with suspected side effects following the HPV4 vaccine. The control group included vaccinated people without side effects. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in 83.3% of the patients but in none of the controls. A high prevalence of symptoms, such as dizziness (91%), heart palpitations (71%), nausea (80%) and hyperactive bladder suggested that the patients were experiencing some kind of autonomic dysfunction. Autonomic dysfunction occurs when the part of the nervous system that controls well-being and balance does not function properly. 2 most frequent symptoms hpv vaccine Most frequent symptoms reported by 612 patients in Denmark. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Twenty-four percent higher antinuclear antibodies (ANA, a common type of autoantibodies) were found in patients, suggesting possible autoimmunity. 3 antinuclear antibodies HPV vaccines A larger proportion of the symptomatic patients were found with a common type of autoantibodies compared to healthy controls. Credit: Journal of Autoimmunity Antibodies against the adrenergic ß-2-receptor and muscarinic M-2 receptors were also found significantly higher in patients. Many of the symptoms, including immune activation and autonomic dysregulation, could be mediated or aggravated by dysregulated autoantibodies against adrenergic receptors and impaired peripheral adrenergic function. The authors suggested that girls and women with probable side effects of HPV vaccination have symptoms and biological markers compatible with an autoimmune disease closely resembling that seen in ME/CFS. Interestingly, people who already had HPV infections at some point appeared to be at greater risk for adverse events following vaccination. The authors noted that “prior disease may precondition some individuals for vaccine-related adverse events.” They also noted that some of the adverse events resembled long-COVID symptoms. Universal HPV vaccination called into question Academic researcher at the University of British Columbia, Lucija Tomljenovic, and neuroscientist Christopher Shaw, who have closely looked into Gardasil, have argued that the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits. In a 2012 comment published in the American Journal of Public Health, they took issue with “incomplete and inaccurate” data and poorly designed trials. Vaccination is unjustified if the vaccine carries any substantial risk, as healthy teenagers face little to no risk of dying from cervical cancer. Risk-benefit analyses must be conducted to ascertain the overall balance of benefits and harms on both individual and societal levels. Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times. Dr. Yuhong Dong, a medical doctor who also holds a doctorate in infectious diseases in China, is the chief scientific officer and co-founder of a Swiss biotech company and former senior medical scientific expert for antiviral drug development at Novartis Pharma in Switzerland. If you or your child suffered harm after receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine, you may have a legal claim. Please visit Wisner Baum for a free case evaluation. Click here to watch a Gardasil litigation update interview with Wisner Baum Senior Partner Bijan Esfandiari. 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/truth-hpv-vaccine-part-2-et/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-truth-about-hpv-vaccination-part-2.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    The Truth About HPV Vaccination, Part 2: Studies Link the Vaccines to Neurological, Autoimmune Disorders
    Researchers who looked closely into the Gardasil HPV vaccine concluded the risks from the vaccine seem to significantly outweigh the as-yet-unproven long-term benefits.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 10280 Views
  • 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
    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
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    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.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 12255 Views
  • Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Here are six takeaways from the review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Order Now

    2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use. Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. global moratorium mrna covid vaccine feature Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free. Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science. Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review. The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule. After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail. Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Authors M. Nathaniel Mead, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., Russ Wolfinger, Ph.D., Jessica Rose, Ph.D., Kris Denhaerynck, Ph.D., Steve Kirsch and Dr. Peter McCullough detailed the vaccines’ potential serious harms to humans, vaccine control and processing issues, the mechanisms behind AEs, the immunological reasons for vaccine inefficacy and the mortality data from the registrational trials. They concluded, “Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA injectable products on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits.” They also called for the vaccines to be immediately removed from the childhood immunization schedule and for the suspension of the boosters. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” they wrote. Finally, the authors called for a full investigation into misconduct by the pharmaceutical companies and the regulatory agencies. It is the first peer-reviewed study to call for a moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA products, Rose told The Defender. “Once a proper assessment of the safety and efficacy claims was made herein — upon which the emergency use authorization (EUA)’s and ultimate final authorizations were granted — it was found that the COVID-19 injectable products were neither safe nor effective,” she added. According to McCollough, “mRNA should never have been authorized for human use.” Lead author Mead told The Defender, “Our view is that any risk-benefit analysis must consider how much the presumed benefit in terms of reduced COVID-19 related mortality is offset by the potential increase in vaccine-induced mortality.” Here are six takeaways from the review: 1. The COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are reclassified gene therapies that were rushed through the regulatory process in a historically unprecedented manner Before the seven-month authorization process for the mRNA vaccines, no vaccine had ever gone to market without undergoing testing of at least four years, with typical timelines averaging 10 years. To speed the process, the companies skipped preclinical studies of potential toxicity from multiple doses and cut the typical 6-12 month observation period for identifying longer-term adverse effects and the established 10-15-year period for monitoring for long-term effects such as cancer and autoimmune disorders, the authors wrote. The trials prioritized documenting effective symptom reduction over SAE and mortality. This was particularly concerning, the authors argued, because mRNA products are gene therapy products reclassified as vaccines and then given EUA for the first time ever for use against a viral disease. However, the gene therapies’ components have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety for use as vaccines. There is an uninvestigated and major concern that the mRNA could transform body cells into viral protein factories — with no off-switch — that produce the spike protein for a prolonged period causing chronic systemic inflammation and immune dysfunction. The spike protein in the vaccine, the authors said, is associated with more severe immunopathology and other AEs than the spike protein in the virus itself. The authors suggested that massive government investment in mRNA technology, including hundreds of millions before the pandemic and tens of billions once it began, meant, “U.S. federal agencies were strongly biased toward successful outcomes for the registrational trials.” The financial incentives along with political pressures to deliver a rapid solution likely influenced a series of flawed decisions that compromised the integrity of the trials and downplayed serious scientific concerns about risks with the technology, they added. RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker Vax-Unvax RFK Jr. and Brian Hooker’s New Book: “Vax-Unvax” Order Now 2. Steps were taken in trials to overestimate vaccine efficacy Because the trials were designed to assess whether the mRNA vaccine reduced symptoms, they did not measure whether the vaccines prevented severe disease and death. Yet the vaccine makers repeatedly claimed that they do. “No large randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have ever demonstrated reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, hospitalization, or death,” the authors wrote. Additionally, the number of people who contracted clinical COVID-19 in both the placebo and intervention groups was “too small to draw meaningful, pragmatic, or broad-sweeping conclusions with regard to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.” Pfizer’s 95 % efficacy claims were based on 162 of 22,000 placebo recipients contracting PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared to eight of 22,000 in the vaccine group. None of the placebo recipients died from COVID-19. In the Moderna trials, only one placebo death was attributed to COVID-19. There was also a much larger percentage of “suspected COVID-19 cases” in both groups, with participants showing COVID-19 symptoms but a negative PCR test. When factoring in those cases, measures of vaccine efficacy drop to about 19%. The trial subject pool was comprised of largely young and healthy individuals, excluding key groups — children, pregnant women, elderly and immunocompromised people — which can also obscure the vaccine’s actual efficacy and safety. Findings from reanalyses of data from the Pfizer trials can be interpreted as showing the vaccines made “no significant difference” in reducing all-cause mortality in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups at 20 weeks into the trial, the authors wrote. Even the six-month post-marketing data Pfizer presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed no reduction in all-cause mortality from the vaccine. The authors reanalyzed that data, adjusting the analysis of deaths to better account for the fact that when Pfizer unblinded the study people from the placebo group took the vaccine, and found the vaccine group had a higher mortality rate (0.105%) than the unvaccinated group (0.0799%), which they said was a conservative estimate. One of the most glaring issues with the registrational trials, they noted, was that they exclusively focused on measuring risk reduction — the ratio of COVID-19 symptom rates in the vaccine group versus the placebo group — rather than measuring absolute risk reduction, which is the likelihood someone will show COVID-19 symptoms relative to people in the population at large. According to FDA guidelines, accounting for both approaches is crucial to avoid the misguided use of pharmaceutical products — but the data were omitted, leading to an overestimation of an intervention’s clinical utility. While both vaccines touted an approximately 95% risk reduction figure as their efficacy figure, the absolute risk reductions for Pfizer and Moderna’s vaccines were 0.7% and 1.1% respectively. “A substantial number of individuals would need to be injected in order to prevent a single mild-to-moderate case of COVID-19,” the authors wrote. As an example, using a conservative estimate that 119 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent infection, and assuming that COVID-19 had a 0.23% infection fatality rate, they wrote that approximately 52,000 vaccinations would be necessary to prevent a single COVID-19-related death. However, “Given trial misconduct and data integrity problems … the true benefit is likely to be much lower,” they wrote. And, they added, one would need to assess that benefit along with harms, which they estimate to be 27 deaths per 100,000 doses of Pfizer. That means, using the most conservative estimates, “for every life saved, there were 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.” They also noted that post-rollout evidence confirmed the efficacy claims were overstated. For example, two large cohort Cleveland clinic studies showed the vaccine could not confer protection against COVID-19 — instead, in those trials, more vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID-19. One study showed the risk of “breakthrough” infection was significantly higher among people who were boosted and that more vaccinations resulted in a greater risk of COVID-19. A second study showed adults who were not “up-to-date” with their shots had a 23% lower incidence of COVID-19 than their “up-to-date” colleagues. 3. The trials underestimated the adverse events, including death, despite evidence in the data. Harms were also underreported and underestimated for a number of reasons, according to the authors, a practice that tends to be common in randomized industry-sponsored vaccine trials in general and “exceptionally evident” here. First, because Pfizer unblinded the trial within just a few weeks of the emergency use authorization and allowed people in the placebo group to take the vaccine, there was not sufficient time to identify late-occurring harms because there was no longer a control group. “Was this necessary, given that none of the deaths in the Pfizer trial were attributed to COVID-19 as the primary cause, and given the very low IFR [infection fatality rate] for a relatively healthy population?” they asked. Also, trial coordinators were “haphazard” in their approach to monitoring AEs. They prioritized documenting events thought to be related to COVID-19 rather than to the vaccines for the first seven days and only recorded “unsolicited” AEs for 30-60 days. After that period, even very SAEs, like death, were not recorded. Even for the AEs recorded in the first seven days, they only solicited data from 20% of the population. None of the trial data was independently verified. “Such secrecy may have enabled the industry to more easily present an inflated and distorted estimate of the genetic injections’ benefits, along with a gross underestimation of potential harms,” they wrote. Subsequent analysis by Michels et al. revealed that deaths and other SAEs — like life-threatening conditions, inpatient hospitalization or extension of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability/incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or a medically significant event — did occur after the cutoff period and before the FDA advisory meeting where emergency authorization was recommended. During the first 33 weeks of the Pfizer trials, 38 subjects died, according to Pfizer’s own data, although independent research by Michels et al. estimated that that number is only approximately 17% of the actual projected number due to missing data. And after that, the rate of deaths continued to increase. Michaels et al. found Pfizer failed to report a substantial increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events. They also found a consistent pattern of reporting delays on the date of the death on subjects’ case reports. Overall, the review authors reported that there were “twice as many cardiac deaths proportionately among vaccinated compared to unvaccinated subjects in the Pfizer trials.” In their discussion, the authors wrote “Based on the extended Pfizer trial findings, our person-years estimate yielded a 31% increase in overall mortality among vaccine recipients, a clear trend in the wrong direction.” This raises serious red flags about how the registrational trials were conducted, Mead said. “Assessments of the safety profile of the COVID-19 modified mRNA injections warrant an objective precautionary perspective, any substantial upward trend in all cause mortality within the intervention arm of the trial population reflects badly on the intervention.” 4. Numbers of SAEs in the trials and post-rollout reporting are well-documented, despite claims to the contrary. Both Pfizer and Moderna found about 125 SAEs per 100,000 vaccine recipients, or one SAE for every 800 vaccines. However, because the trials excluded more vulnerable people, the authors note, even higher proportions of SAEs would be expected in the general population. The Fraiman et al. reanalysis of the Pfizer trial data found a significant 36% higher risk of SAEs, which included deaths and many life-threatening conditions in the vaccinated participants. Official SAEs for other vaccines average around only 1-2 per million. Fraiman et alestimated 1,250 SEAs per million vaccines, exceeding that benchmark by “at least 600-fold.” After the vaccine rollout, analyses of two large drug safety reporting systems in the U.S. and Europe identified signals for myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, cardio-respiratory arrest, cerebral infarction, and cerebral hemorrhage associated with both mRNA vaccines, along with ischemic stroke. And millions of AEs have been reported to those systems. Another study by Skidmore et al. estimated the total number of fatalities from the vaccines in 2021 alone was 289,789. Autopsy studies have also provided additional evidence of serious harms, including evidence that most COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-related deaths resulted from injury to the cardiovascular system. In multiple autopsy studies, German pathologist Aren Burkhardt documented the presence of vaccine-mRNA-produced spike proteins in blood vessel walls and brain tissues. This research helps to explain documented vaccine-induced toxicities affecting the nervous, immune, reproductive and other systems. The Pfizer data also showed an overwhelming number of adverse effects. According to a confidential document released in August 2022, Pfizer had documented approximately 1.6 million AEs affecting nearly every organ system, and one-third of them were classified as serious. In Pfizer’s trial, Michels and colleagues found a nearly 4-fold increase (OR 3.7, 95%CI 1.02-13.2, p = 0.03) in serious cardiac events (e.g., heart attack, acute coronary syndrome) in the vaccine group. Neither the original trial report nor Pfizer’s Summary Clinical Safety report acknowledged or commented on this safety signal. “The serious adverse events are all well documented,” Mead said. “Yet it’s surprising to see so many in the medical field continue to ignore or dismiss outright the latter half of the equation when considering all cause mortality trends.” 5. The failure to appropriately test for safety and toxicity poses serious problems. Researchers have raised concerns that the mRNA technology is inherently unstable and difficult to store, which leads to batch variability and contamination linked to different rates of AEs. Recent findings by McKernan et al. that found Pfizers’ mRNA vaccines are contaminated with plasmid DNA that shouldn’t be present — and wasn’t present in the vaccines used in the trials – raising serious safety issues. That’s because “Process 1,” used in the trials to generate the vaccines involved in vitro transcription of synthetic DNA — essentially a “clean” process. However, that process isn’t viable for mass production, so the manufacturers used “Process 2,” which involves using E. coli bacteria to replicate the plasmids. Removing plasmids E coli. can result in residual plasmids in the vaccines and the effects of their presence is unknown. McKernan’s work also revealed the presence of DNA from simian virus 40 (SV40), an oncogenic DNA virus originally isolated in 1960 from contaminated polio vaccines, induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals, raising other safety concerns. Researchers from Cambridge published a paper in Nature in December 2023, where they found an inherent defect in the modified RNA instructions for the spike protein in COVID-19 immunizations that causes the machinery that translates the gene to the spike protein to “slip” about 10% of the time This process creates “frameshifts” that cause cells to produce “off-target” proteins in addition to the spike. These proteins, which developers either failed to look for or did not report to regulators, cause undesirable immune responses whose long-term effects are unknown. 6. There are many different possible biological mechanisms that cause AEs and vaccine ineffectiveness. The review points readers to a series of papers that explain a number of different theories to explain the high number of AEs from the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. “The mechanisms of molecular mimicry, antigen cross-reactivity, pathogenic priming, viral reactivation, immune exhaustion, and other factors related to immune dysfunction all reinforce the biological plausibility for vaccine-induced pathogenesis of malignant and autoimmune diseases,” they wrote. And these mechanisms of immune activation are distinct from the body’s response to a viral infection. They also note the toxic effects of the primary adjuvant, PEG, and of the spike protein itself. They close their analysis of the vaccines with a complex explanation for the different immunological basis for protection provided by the vaccines versus natural immunity through infection. They explain the mechanisms for vaccine failure and problems generated by the ability for the mRNA vaccines to perpetuate the emergence of new variants. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/scientists-global-moratorium-mrna-vaccines-removal-childhood-schedule/ https://donshafi911.blogspot.com/2024/01/scientists-call-for-global-moratorium.html
    CHILDRENSHEALTHDEFENSE.ORG
    Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
    A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 11014 Views
  • Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help?
    Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024
    Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom.

    Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes.

    That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty.

    The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO.

    So, what can we do to help?

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

    Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO?

    By Dr. Tess Lawrie

    A summary of what you need to know.

    A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery

    If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope!

    New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start.

    How did this situation arise?

    The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal.

    1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.”

    In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate.

    2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states.

    3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron.

    4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution.

    5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948.

    6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement.

    7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing.

    8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose.

    9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests.

    Time for legal action

    WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow.

    Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that:

    The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’.
    The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to
    make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations.
    Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification.
    Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation.

    Further resources:

    Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation!
    Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO!
    About the Author

    Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE.



    https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/
    Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help? Rhoda WilsonJanuary 29, 2024 Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those elected to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty and freedom. Although at this time we cannot rely on our government to protect and defend our rights and freedoms, there appears to be hope, Dr. Tess Lawrie writes. That hope lies in a recent discovery by researchers that the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) is unlawful. Based on this, The People’s Lawyers have launched an injunction to reject the proposed amendments to the IHR and the Pandemic Treaty. The People’s Lawyers are also seeking to halt the UK government’s funding of WHO and related organisations and get the UK to exit the WHO. So, what can we do to help? Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox… Is the UK Unlawfully a Member of WHO? By Dr. Tess Lawrie A summary of what you need to know. A shocking (but hopeful!) discovery If those controlling the World Health Organisation (“WHO”) get their way, the United Kingdom and other member states will soon be subject to medical and political tyranny under amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005 (“IHR”), and the so-called “Pandemic Treaty.” To date, citizen efforts to oppose these developments have been ignored. But suddenly it appears that there is hope! New research has revealed that the UK is unlawfully part of WHO! Based on this discovery, a group known as The People’s Lawyers are launching a legal action for an injunction to reject the IHR and proposed amendments, any “Pandemic Treaty,” and all dictates from WHO, both now and in the future. They are also seeking to halt UK Government funding of WHO and related organisations and to have the UK exit WHO on the basis that its membership has been unlawful from the start. How did this situation arise? The fundamental concern is that significant fraud was committed during the establishment of WHO. Documents, including diary entries, prove that the “official story” is a highly sanitised version of the actual events. You can read the details of the whole intriguing story HERE, but for a quick overview, here are the essential points that illustrate the fraudulent nature of WHO’s origins, and give hope that this may aid the UK’s withdrawal. 1. The official story states that: “In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organisation be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.” In fact, this was not a spontaneous proposal from two nations; instead, the two doctors who brought the proposal, Dr. Souza from Brazil and Dr. Sze, a Chinese American, worked together at the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (“UNRRA”) in Washington DC and were collaborating with the US Government and the Rockefeller Foundation (“RF”) to engineer WHO’s establishment. Dr. Sze wrote the documents claimed to be from the Chinese and Brazilian governments regarding “their” desires for an international health organisation, and both doctors worked hard to convince the Brazilian and Chinese delegates to cooperate. 2. Dr. Sze also drafted a resolution from the San Francisco Conference and took this to Washington D.C., where Rockefeller-influenced officials approved it as a Health Interim Commission. This mechanism – first used to create the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1943 – allowed an organisation to be set up exactly as required. People who had not been involved in the “expert” proceedings were unable to change things later. Thus, WHO was set up by stealth, without notification or participation of potential member states. 3. The role of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has quietly steered the global public health agenda for over a century, cannot be underestimated. Since it was founded in 1913 it has been a major funder of public health research, policy, implementation, and education around the world. While it is a philanthropic body, this level of investment garners a great deal of geopolitical power and influence. Indeed, the progenitor of WHO – the League of Nations Health Organisation (“LNHO”), founded after World War I – was modelled on the RF’s own International Health Division (est. 1927), and the RF was its major patron. 4. The UN Economic and Social Council (“ESC”) called for an International Health Conference in New York (19 June – 22 July 1946) to establish WHO. This proved to be a rubber-stamping exercise as, prior to the conference, the WHO Technical Preparatory Committee – comprising members with links to the RF, including Souza and Sze, as well as US government representatives – had finalised the proposed WHO Constitution. 5. This Constitution was essentially forced on the delegates. They assumed that it would be properly considered and ratified and that it could be rejected by their own governments, but this did not happen. In the UK there was no attempt to review or ratify the document. On 22 July 1946, it was signed by representatives of 61 nations. While this would seem to be the date of the establishment of WHO, the Constitution only came into force in 1948, after 26 nations had ratified it. The Interim Commission remained in force for two more years, until it was succeeded by WHO on 31 August 1948. 6. Mystery surrounds the involvement of the UK in the establishment of WHO. The official Parliamentary record, Hansard, makes no mention during May 1946 of the UK signing up to a “World Health Organisation” shortly after the UN ESC meeting in New York. While the official UN attendance list states that the minister in charge of the UK delegation was Hector McNeil, Hansard records him speaking in Parliament on the same day – so he could not have been present in New York. Very few MPs – not even the Health Minister – knew about the International Health Conference or the signing of the WHO Constitution. It is highly irregular that the UK was not required to ratify its membership and that the Cabinet neither discussed nor agreed to this international agreement. 7. At the end of the International Health Conference, the WHO Constitution was signed by two ‘government advisors’ – Dr. McKenzie and Mr. Yates – on behalf of the UK. No UK Minister was present and the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, Sir Wilson Jameson, who attended the Conference was not a signatory. It is unconscionable that such an important agreement could have been signed without Parliament even being aware of the process, and without any senior members of the Government being present. There are even questions as to the legality of the original signed Constitution as many of the signatures were just squiggles, and the printed names and positions of the signatories, which are required on a legally binding document, were missing. 8. One of the reasons for the establishment of WHO was to take over the functions of UNRRA, a body with a limited life span but massive public health powers. In 1944 it had imposed International Sanitary Conventions on the entire world and had the power to mandate vaccination of anyone they chose. 9. Another organisation that was incorporated into WHO in 1946 was the LNHO. With all its staff being transferred to WHO, the new organisation incorporated much of LNHO’s sinister past, including a history of Nazi and fascist collaboration during World War II, promotion of eugenics – population control and sterilisation – in its policies, and control by Rockefeller and Big Pharma interests. Time for legal action WHO’s current desperate power grab clearly has a long history. Even before the signing of WHO’s Constitution in 1946, its progenitor organisations were already using public health as a means of expanding global control. The UK’s People and parliament were bypassed and deceived when WHO was created, and have continued to be deceived by the unlawful nature of the UK’s membership of WHO for the past 77 years. But now this immense fraud has been exposed and the legal challenge must follow. Considering the above, The People’s Lawyers assert that: The UK was unlawfully signed up to the WHO Constitution. It is therefore not legitimately a WHO member state and should not be subject to the International Health Regulations 2005, their recent amendments, or any ‘Pandemic Treaty’. The UK should not be subject to any dictates from WHO, nor should it have to make any further financial contributions to WHO or any associated organisations. Past contributions to WHO should now be refunded, as WHO knowingly allowed unelected advisors to unlawfully sign the Constitution, and this without ratification. Recognising the depth of the fraud, other alleged WHO “Member States” should now also examine how they ended up as part of WHO, without a referendum or even, in some cases, ratification. It is time for the people to hold WHO to account. Thanks to The People’s Lawyers, there is now evidence we can use to dismantle this discredited organisation. Further resources: Sign the Petition to End the UK’s membership of the World Health Organisation! Pledge to help to support The People’s Lawyers in their case to Reject and Exit the WHO! About the Author Dr. Tess Lawrie is the founder of the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development International (BIRD International), Director of EbMCsquared CiC and a member of the steering group of the World Council for Health. She is the author of a Substack page titled ‘A Better Way with Dr Tess Lawrie’ and you can follow her on Twitter HERE. https://expose-news.com/2024/01/29/legal-action-for-the-uk-to-defund-and-exit-the-who/
    EXPOSE-NEWS.COM
    Legal action for the UK to defund and exit the WHO is launched; how we can help?
    Efforts to expose the World Health Organisation’s nefarious Pandemic Treaty (Pandemic Accord) and its ugly sister the amendments to the International Health Regulations are being ignored by those e…
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 6444 Views
  • Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
    contact@ifamericansknew.org January 27, 2024 genocide, icj, international court of justice
    Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
    World Court rules on Gaza emergency measures in Israel genocide case, in The Hague (photo)
    Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, the dissenting judges, the binding nature of the decision, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties.

    Summary of ICJ’s ruling

    reposted from Al Jazeera

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

    (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The court stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire.



    Who are the ICJ judges that voted against motions?

    Julia Sebutinde – voted against all motions

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

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

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

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

    Aharon Barak – voted against most motions

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

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

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

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

    FAQ: Are decisions of the Court binding?

    reposted from the ICJ website

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

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

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

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

    by Kenneth Roth, reposted from the Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nine take-aways from the ICJ ruling

    by Huwaida Arraf, reposted from X

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

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

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

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

    ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    reposted from Al Jazeera

    Palestinians in Gaza

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

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

    Palestinians in the occupied West Bank

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

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

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

    Palestine

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

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

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

    Israel

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

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

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

    South Africa

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

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

    United States

    The United States said the ruling of the ICJ was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated.

    “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said.

    European Union

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

    RELATED READING:

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

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/synopsis-of-icjs-decision-on-israeli-genocide-reactions-and-take-aways/
    Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways contact@ifamericansknew.org January 27, 2024 genocide, icj, international court of justice Synopsis of ICJ’s decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways World Court rules on Gaza emergency measures in Israel genocide case, in The Hague (photo) Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, the dissenting judges, the binding nature of the decision, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties. Summary of ICJ’s ruling reposted from Al Jazeera The World Court ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against the Hamas group in the Gaza Strip. (15-2) (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above (vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip (vote 16-1) The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts within the scope of Article II and Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip (vote 15-2) The State of Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this order within one month as from the date of this Order. The court stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. Who are the ICJ judges that voted against motions? Julia Sebutinde – voted against all motions In 1996, Sebutinde was appointed as one of the judges of the High Court of Uganda. In 2012, she became the first African woman to be appointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the world court. She has broken barriers and paved the way for countless other African women in the field of law. Sebutinde got her undergraduate degree in Uganda, and Master’s and Doctorate of Law at the University of Edinburgh. She has contributed immensely to international law jurisprudence through the cases she has heard, often with dissenting opinions. Regarding her voting record in this case, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations stated, Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine. She has previously voted against Uganda’s case on DRC. Uganda’s support for the plight of the Palestinian people has been expressed through Uganda ‘s voting pattern at the United Nations. Aharon Barak – voted against most motions Barak is an Israeli lawyer who was appointed to the 15-judge panel of the ICJ ahead of South Africa’s case against Israel. Under the ICJ’s rules, a country that does not have a judge to represent its own on the bench can choose an ad hoc judge. The 87-year-old is a retired judge from the Israeli Supreme Court and a recipient of the Israel Prize for Legal Studies. Barak was born in Lithuania and, studied law in Hebrew University. He was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court in 1978, where he went on to serve for 28 years. The ICJ full panel is led by President Joan E. Donoghue from the US and Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian from Russia. They head a diverse bench with judges from 13 other countries including Slovakia, France, Morocco, Somalia, China, Uganda, India, Jamaica, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Australia, and Brazil. Two ad hoc judges appointed to the panel for this case were from Israel and South Africa. FAQ: Are decisions of the Court binding? reposted from the ICJ website Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter provides that “[e]ach Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”. Judgments are final and without appeal. If there is a dispute about the meaning or scope of a judgment, the only possibility is for one of the parties to make a request to the Court for an interpretation. In the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment. As regards advisory opinions, it is usually for the United Nations organs and specialized agencies requesting them to give effect to them or not, by whichever means they see fit. The ICJ ruling is a repudiation of Israel and its western backers by Kenneth Roth, reposted from the Guardian The international court of justice’s (ICJ) ruling in South Africa’s genocide case was a powerful repudiation of Israel’s denialism. By an overwhelming majority, the court found a “plausible” case that provisional measures were needed to avoid “irreparable prejudice” from further Israeli acts in Gaza that could jeopardize Palestinian rights under the genocide convention. The public posture of various Israeli officials was, in essence: how dare anyone accuse us of genocide. After all, they pointed out, Israel was founded after the Holocaust to protect the Jewish people from genocide, Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October, and many of Hamas’s statements seem genocidal in intent. Yet none of that is a defense to the charge of genocide. Regardless of Israel’s history, regardless of its claim of self-defense, the means chosen to fight Hamas can still be genocidal. The court found enough merit in that claim to recognize that Palestinian civilians need the court’s protection. The court’s ruling was also a repudiation of Israel’s western backers. The Biden administration had called the suit “meritless”. The British government said it was “nonsense”. By a vote of 15 to 2, the ICJ judges found otherwise. On the need to allow humanitarian aid to a starving population in Gaza and to prevent and punish the incitement of genocide, even the respected Israeli judge, Aharon Barak, joined the majority, making the vote 16 to 1 – a powerful repudiation of those who try to chalk up challenges to Israel’s conduct in Gaza as an unfair double standard or antisemitism. The current proceedings were not about the ultimate merits of the case. It could take years to determine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. But the provisional measures ordered by the court could make an enormous difference in curbing the death and suffering of Palestinian civilians now. What now? The key will be enforcement. The ICJ ruling is “binding”, as the court stressed, but the ICJ has no military or police force at its disposal. For coercive measures, it would need a resolution of the UN security council, which requires contending with the US government’s veto, so often deployed to protect Israel. But the political pressure to comply with the ruling will be enormous. Having trusted the court to send its lawyers to The Hague to present its case, Israel would look horrible to reject the court just because it lost. In calling the underlying genocide charges “outrageous” – a finding that, as mentioned, the court did not yet address – the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, notably did not say he would refuse to comply with the court’s provisional measures. Let’s hope he will. Some were disappointed that the ICJ did not order a ceasefire, a step that was unlikely because the court addresses only disputes between states, so Hamas was not a party. A ceasefire imposed on only one side to an ongoing armed conflict is not plausible. The court did order Israel to “take all measures within its power” to halt acts that contribute to genocide, to allow sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza to end the suffering among Palestinian civilians, and to prevent and punish the public statements of incitement made by senior Israeli officials. Israel must report back to the court in a month on the steps it has taken. Yet there is a lot of wiggle room in those orders. That’s where Israel’s supporters come in. Will they move past their earlier skepticism toward the case and now urge Israel to comply? Western governments backed the ICJ in similar rulings against Myanmar, Russia and Syria. It would do enormous damage to the “rules-based order” that Western governments claim to uphold if they were to make an exception for Israel. Joe Biden holds the most powerful leverage. The US government provides $3.8bn in annual military aid to Israel and is its principal arms supplier. That support should stop if the Israeli government ignores the court’s ruling. The US president should no longer put his fear of domestic political consequences, or his personal identification with Israel, before the lives of so many Palestinian civilians. Other pressure for compliance could come from the international criminal court. Unlike the ICJ, which resolves disputes between states, the ICC prosecutes individuals for such crimes as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Better behavior now is no defense for crimes already committed, but if Israel were to ignore the ICJ ruling, that would be an added spur for the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, to act. Much is still unresolved, but today is a win for the rule of law. South Africa, a nation of the global south, was able to transcend power politics by invoking the world’s leading judicial institution. The court’s ruling shows that even governments with powerful friends can be held to account. That provides hope for the profoundly suffering Palestinian civilians of Gaza. It is also a small but important step toward a more lawful, rights-respecting world. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs Nine take-aways from the ICJ ruling by Huwaida Arraf, reposted from X While many are disappointed that the ICJ did not explicitly order a ceasefire, the ruling was historic and a huge defeat for Israel. Here’s what we need to take away and what we need to do: The Court found that RSA made a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and October 7 is no justification for Israel’s conduct. This is huge. The Court found that immediate protective measures are necessary to protect the Palestinian people from irreparable harm caused by Israel’s genocidal conduct and ordered such measures. In order for Israel to abide by the measures, including the provision of basic services (turning on water, electricity and allowing the entry of fuel) and humanitarian aid, it would need to cease its military assault. Aid organizations have said that one of the main reasons they are unable to deliver aid, besides Israel’s restrictions on entry of aid, is Israel’s military aggression which makes it too dangerous for them to reach many areas. The Court has also instituted a monitoring mechanism and Israel must report on everything it’s doing to abide by the Order of the Court within a month (should have been shorter). ALL countries signatory to the Genocide Convention have an obligation to prevent genocide. This means that, when there is reason to believe that there is a threat of genocide, states MUST act to prevent it. All countries are now on notice that there is a plausible threat of genocide. This means that, continuing to supply Israel with weapons and vetoing UNSC resolutions will amount to violations of that responsibility and also a potential violation of Art III of the Convention, prohibiting complicity in genocide. If Israel does not comply with the ICJ Order, the matter should be brought before the UNSC. If the US vetoes, this will be an indictment of the US, but not the end. States must then use UNGA 377 – Uniting for Peace – to not only bring the matter before the UNGA, but to make sure that the UNGA resolution includes implementation measures (without an agreement on such measures, the resolution will be ineffective). Such measures can include international sanctions on Israel and suspending Israel’s membership in the UN. Alongside all of this, we must continue our work in the streets and in national courts to hold Israel and enablers accountable. This includes: continuing to demand that our governments sanction Israel; demanding Israel’s suspension from international fora such as Eurovision and international sporting arenas; using the principle of universal jurisdiction to prosecute Israeli war criminals in national courts, which is already being pursued. The World Court has found that Israel may be committing genocide — the mother of all crimes. This is an indictment, not only on Israel, but on all who have been enabling Israel and using October 7, as justification. It must also be a wakeup call to all who have been silent. There’s no excuse. Huwaida Arraf is a Palestinian American activist and lawyer who co-founded the International Solidarity Movement, a Palestinian-led organization using non-violent protests and international pressure to support Palestinians. ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge A different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented this from happening in the first place. by Trita Parsi, reposted from Responsible Statecraft, January 26, 2024 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) just ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The Court imposes several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law. In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favor of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result. On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts. This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimize Israel internationally. However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved. Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide. As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the U.S. under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too. The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling. Instead, the matter will go to the United Nations Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.” So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the U.S. and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented. The double standards of U.S. foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling. It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7. It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct. Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t. Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide. This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around. As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis. This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation. What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the U.S. and UK’s military action against the Houthis? The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The U.S. is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not. International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm. One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.* Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application. If so, it shows that the Court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done. * EDITOR’S NOTE: Israel appears to have done little, if anything, to moderate its war conduct since South Africa submitted its genocide accusation on December 29th. The numbers of Palestinians killed in Gaza and the West Bank has continued to climb steadily; while there has been a slight improvement in number of humanitarian aid trucks, it is not impressive, and not reaching the north where hundreds of thousands are starving. There is still no electricity, no water, almost no medical services, and no safety. Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Some reactions to ICJ ruling on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel reposted from Al Jazeera Palestinians in Gaza Palestinians in Gaza said they are devastated by the ICJ decision not to order Israel to cease its near-four-month bombardment and ground invasion of the strip. Ahmed al-Naffar, 54, who was intently following the court’s announcement in central Gaza’s Deir el-Balah, told Al Jazeera: “Although I don’t trust the international community, I had a small glimmer of hope that the court would rule on a ceasefire in Gaza,” later adding that “The court is a failure.” Palestinians in the occupied West Bank Lubna Farhat, a member of the Ramallah city council, told Al Jazeera she was somewhat disappointed by the ICJ decision but acknowledged it was a historic moment. “We are very grateful and thankful for South Africa for filing this case, but what Palestinians aspired for was an immediate ceasefire,” Farhat said, adding that it was disheartening that the court did not call for an end to Israel’s military operations so humanitarian aid could be allowed into Gaza. She said the ruling would only “escalate” settler attacks in the occupied West Bank and increase the attackers’ sense of impunity. Palestine Palestine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates welcomed the ICJ’s ruling, saying in a statement it is an “important reminder” that no state is above the law. Foreign Minister Riyadh Maliki noted that Israel failed to persuade the court that it is not violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. In a statement he said: “The ICJ judges saw through Israel’s politicization, deflection, and outright lies. They assessed the facts and the law and ordered provisional measures that recognized the gravity of the situation on the ground and the veracity of South Africa’s application. … Palestine calls on all states to ensure respect for the order of the International Court of Justice, including by Israel.” Israel Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the ruling as “outrageous”. In a video message shortly after the court order, he said Israel is fighting a “just war like no other”. He added that Israel will continue to defend itself and its citizens while adhering to international law. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir mocked the ICJ after the court issued its interim ruling. “Hague shmague,” the minister wrote on the social media platform X. South Africa The South African government called the ICJ ruling a “decisive victory” for international law. “How do you provide aid and water without a ceasefire?” Pandor asked. “If you read the order, by implication, a ceasefire must happen.” United States The United States said the ruling of the ICJ was consistent with Washington’s view that Israel has the right to take action, in accordance with international law, to ensure the October 7 attack cannot be repeated. “We continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded and note the court did not make a finding about genocide or call for a ceasefire in its ruling and that it called for the unconditional, immediate release of all hostages being held by Hamas,” a State Department spokesperson said. European Union “Orders of the International Court of Justice are binding on the parties and they must comply with them. The European Union expects their full, immediate and effective implementation,” the European Commission said in a statement. RELATED READING: The ICJ presentations on Israeli genocide against Palestinians Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas truce offers John Mearsheimer: Genocide in Gaza Is the United Nations anti-Israel? – a survey of UN resolutions Essential facts and stats about the Hamas-Gaza-Israel war https://israelpalestinenews.org/synopsis-of-icjs-decision-on-israeli-genocide-reactions-and-take-aways/
    ISRAELPALESTINENEWS.ORG
    Synopsis of ICJ's decision on Israeli genocide, reactions, and take-aways
    Get a handle on the ICJ ruling, dissenting judges, take-aways from several important voices, and reactions from stakeholding parties.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 11624 Views
  • Everything to know about the Health Benefits of Beets
    Some benefits of eating beets may include lower blood pressure and better athletic performance, among others. Eating beets raw or juicing and roasting them may be more beneficial than boiling them.

    Beetroots, commonly known as beets, are a vibrant and versatile type of vegetable. They’re known for their earthy flavor and aroma. Many people call them a superfood because of their rich nutritional profile.

    In addition to bringing a pop of color to your plate, beets are highly nutritious and packed with essential vitamins, minerals, and plant compounds, many of which have medicinal properties.

    What’s more, they’re delicious and easy to add to your diet in dishes like balsamic roasted beets, hummus, fries, and salads, among many others.

    Here are 9 evidence-based benefits of beets, plus some tasty ways to increase your intake.

    Share on Pinterest
    Beets boast an impressive nutritional profile.

    They’re low in calories yet high in valuable vitamins and minerals. In fact, they contain a bit of almost all of the vitamins and minerals your body needs (1Trusted Source).

    Here’s an overview of the nutrients found in a 3.5-ounce (100-gram) serving of boiled beetroot (1Trusted Source):

    Calories: 44
    Protein: 1.7 grams
    Fat: 0.2 grams
    Carbs: 10 grams
    Fiber: 2 grams
    Folate: 20% of the Daily Value (DV)
    Manganese: 14% of the DV
    Copper: 8% of the DV
    Potassium: 7% of the DV
    Magnesium: 6% of the DV
    Vitamin C: 4% of the DV
    Vitamin B6: 4% of the DV
    Iron: 4% of the DV
    Beets are particularly rich in folate, a vitamin that plays a key role in growth, development, and heart health (2Trusted Source).

    They also contain a good amount of manganese, which is involved in bone formation, nutrient metabolism, brain function, and more (3Trusted Source).

    Plus, they’re high in copper, an important mineral required for energy production and the synthesis of certain neurotransmitters (4Trusted Source).

    Summary
    Beets are loaded with vitamins and minerals yet low in calories and fat. They’re also a good source of several key nutrients, including folate, manganese, and copper.

    Beets have been well studied for their ability to decrease elevated blood pressure levels, which are a major risk factor for heart disease (5Trusted Source).

    In fact, some studies show that beetroot juice could significantly lower levels of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (6Trusted Source, 7Trusted Source).

    The effect appears to be greater for systolic blood pressure, which is the pressure when your heart contracts, rather than diastolic blood pressure, which is the pressure when your heart is relaxed. Also, raw beets may exert a stronger effect than cooked ones (7Trusted Source, 8Trusted Source).

    These blood-pressure-lowering effects are likely due to the high concentration of nitrates in this root vegetable. In your body, dietary nitrates are converted into nitric oxide, a molecule that dilates blood vessels and causes blood pressure levels to drop (9Trusted Source).

    Beets are also a great source of folate. Although research has turned up mixed results, several studies suggest that increasing your intake of folate could significantly lower blood pressure levels (10Trusted Source).

    However, keep in mind that beets’ effect on blood pressure is only temporary. As such, you need to consume them regularly to experience heart-health benefits over the long term (11Trusted Source).

    Summary
    Beets contain a high concentration of nitrates, which can help lower your blood pressure levels. This may lead to a reduced risk of heart disease and stroke.

    Several studies suggest that dietary nitrates like those found in beets may enhance athletic performance.

    Nitrates appear to affect physical performance by improving the efficiency of mitochondria, which are responsible for producing energy in your cells (12Trusted Source).

    According to one review, beetroot juice could enhance endurance by increasing how long it takes to become exhausted, boosting cardiorespiratory performance, and improving efficiency for athletes (13Trusted Source).

    Promisingly, beet juice has also been shown to improve cycling performance and increase oxygen use by up to 20% (14Trusted Source, 15Trusted Source).

    It’s important to note that blood nitrate levels peak within 2–3 hours of consuming beets or their juice. Therefore, it’s best to consume them a couple of hours before training or competing to maximize their potential benefits (16Trusted Source).

    Summary
    Eating beets may enhance athletic performance by improving oxygen use and endurance. To maximize their effects, consume them 2–3 hours prior to training or competing.

    Beets contain pigments called betalains, which possess a number of anti-inflammatory properties (8Trusted Source, 17Trusted Source, 18Trusted Source).

    This could benefit several aspects of health, as chronic inflammation has been associated with conditions like obesity, heart disease, liver disease, and cancer (19Trusted Source).

    One study in 24 people with high blood pressure found that consuming 8.5 ounces (250 mL) of beet juice for 2 weeks significantly reduced several markers of inflammation, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) (8Trusted Source).

    Plus, an older 2014 study in people with osteoarthritis — a condition that causes inflammation in the joints — showed that betalain capsules made with beetroot extract reduced pain and discomfort (20).

    Beetroot juice and extract have also been shown to reduce kidney inflammation in rats injected with toxic, injury-causing chemicals (17Trusted Source).

    Still, more studies in humans are needed to determine whether enjoying beets in normal amounts as part of a healthy diet may provide the same anti-inflammatory benefits.

    Summary
    Beets may have a number of anti-inflammatory effects, although further research in humans is needed.

    One cup of beetroot contains 3.4 grams of fiber, making beets a good fiber source (1Trusted Source).

    Fiber bypasses digestion and travels to the colon, where it feeds friendly gut bacteria and adds bulk to stools (21Trusted Source).

    This can promote digestive health, keep you regular, and prevent digestive conditions like constipation, inflammatory bowel disease (IBS), and diverticulitis (22Trusted Source, 23Trusted Source).

    Moreover, fiber has been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including colon cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes (23Trusted Source, 24Trusted Source, 25Trusted Source).

    Summary
    Beets are a good source of fiber, which benefits your digestive health and reduces the risk of several chronic health conditions.

    »MORE:Living with diabetes? Explore our top resources.
    Mental and cognitive functions naturally decline with age, which can increase the risk of neurodegenerative disorders like dementia.

    The nitrates in beets may improve brain function by promoting the dilation of blood vessels and thus increasing blood flow to the brain (26Trusted Source).

    Particularly, beets have been shown to improve blood flow to the frontal lobe of the brain, an area associated with higher level thinking like decision making and working memory (27Trusted Source).

    Furthermore, an older study in people with type 2 diabetes found that reaction time during a cognitive function test was 4% faster in those who consumed 8.5 ounces (250 mL) of beetroot juice daily for 2 weeks, compared with a control group (28Trusted Source).

    However, more research is needed to determine whether beets could be used to improve brain function and reduce the risk of dementia among the general population.

    Summary
    Beets contain nitrates, which may increase blood flow to the brain and improve cognitive function. However, more research in this area is needed.

    Beetroot contains several compounds with cancer-fighting properties, including betaine, ferulic acid, rutin, kaempferol, and caffeic acid (29Trusted Source).

    Although more research is needed, test-tube studies have shown that beetroot extract can slow the division and growth of cancer cells (30Trusted SourceTrusted Source, 31Trusted Source, 32Trusted Source).

    Several other studies have found that having higher blood levels of betaine may be associated with a lower risk of developing cancer (33Trusted Source, 34Trusted Source).

    However, it’s important to note that most studies on the topic have used isolated compounds rather than beetroot. Therefore, further research on beetroot consumption as part of a well-rounded diet and cancer risk is needed.

    Summary
    Some studies show that certain compounds found in beets could have cancer-fighting properties. Still, further research is needed to better understand this potential connection.

    Beets have several nutritional properties that could make them a great addition to a balanced diet.

    First, they’re low in fat and calories but high in water, which can help balance your energy intake. Increasing your intake of low calorie foods like this root vegetable has also been associated with weight loss (35Trusted Source).

    Furthermore, despite their low calorie content, they contain moderate amounts of protein and fiber. Both of these nutrients can make it easier to achieve and maintain a moderate weight (36Trusted Source, 37Trusted Source).

    The fiber in beets may also support digestive health, decrease appetite, and promote feelings of fullness, thereby reducing your overall calorie intake (38Trusted Source).

    Additionally, by including them in smoothies or other recipes, you can easily increase your intake of fruits and vegetables to improve the quality of your diet (39Trusted Source).

    Summary
    Beets have are high in water, moderate in fiber and protein, and low in calories. All of these properties can balance your energy intake and improve your diet quality.

    Beets are not only nutritious but also incredibly delicious and easy to incorporate into your diet.

    You can juice, roast, steam, or pickle them. For a convenient option, you can purchase them precooked and canned. You can even enjoy them raw, either sliced thinly or grated.

    Choose beets that feel heavy for their size with fresh, unwilted green leafy tops still attached, if possible.

    Because dietary nitrates are water-soluble, it’s best to avoid boiling beets if you’d like to maximize their nitrate content.

    Are beets good for people with diabetes?

    Here are some delicious and interesting ways to add more beets to your diet:

    Salad. Grated beets make a flavorful and colorful addition to coleslaw or other salads. Try this recipe for Amazing Dressed Beets or a Beetroot, Orange, and Carrot Salad.
    Dip. Beets blended with Greek yogurt and fresh garlic make a delicious, healthy, and colorful dip. Have a go at this Beetroot and Honey Lemon Houmous.
    Juice. Fresh beetroot juice is typically better than store-bought versions, which can be high in added sugar and contain only a small amount of beets. Try this beetroot juice recipe, which uses carrot, apple, ginger, celery, and lemon for flavor
    Soup: Borscht is a popular soup in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia. Try this classic recipe or this beetroot and tomato variation.
    Leaves. You can cook and enjoy fresh beet leaves similarly to how you’d use spinach. Get some ideas for cooking beet greens here.
    Roasted. Wedge beetroots and toss them with a little olive oil, salt, pepper, and herbs or spices of your choice. Then, roast them in a 400°F (205°C) oven for 15–20 minutes until they’re tender. Or try these Balsamic Roasted Beets.
    Summary
    Beetroot is a delicious and versatile vegetable that’s easy to add to your diet. If possible, choose beets that feel heavy for their size with green tops still attached.

    Can you eat beets everyday?

    It’s always best to follow a varied diet.

    Eating a small amount of beetroot every day is unlikely to do any harm, but a high intake could lead to low blood pressure, red or black urine and feces, and digestive problems for anyone with a sensitivity to the nutrients. A high daily beet consumption may also mean you are not getting nutrients from other foods, however, so try to vary your diet.

    Always speak with a doctor before making significant dietary changes.

    Are beets a superfood?

    Some people call beets a superfood because they are rich in essential nutrients.

    Are beets anti-inflammatory?

    Beets contain betalains, a natural coloring agent with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Some research suggests belatains may help reduce both symptoms and biological markers in the body related to inflammation (8Trusted Source, 17Trusted Source, 20).

    Can beets boost your sexual health?

    Beets contain nitrates and there is some evidence they may improve the body’s nitric oxide production (40Trusted Source).

    The body needs nitric oxide to open the blood vessels that are necessary for getting and maintaining an erection. This may make them suitable for people with erectile dysfunction, although there is no scientific evidence to confirm this.

    Can beets help with sexual function?

    Beets are highly nutritious and loaded with health-promoting properties.

    They can support the health of your brain, heart, and digestive system, are a great addition to a balanced diet, boost athletic performance, help alleviate inflammation, and possibly slow the growth of cancer cells.

    Best of all, beets are delicious and easy to include in your diet. For example, they’re a great addition to salads, side dishes, smoothies, dips, and juices.

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-beets#nutrients-and-calories
    Everything to know about the Health Benefits of Beets Some benefits of eating beets may include lower blood pressure and better athletic performance, among others. Eating beets raw or juicing and roasting them may be more beneficial than boiling them. Beetroots, commonly known as beets, are a vibrant and versatile type of vegetable. They’re known for their earthy flavor and aroma. Many people call them a superfood because of their rich nutritional profile. In addition to bringing a pop of color to your plate, beets are highly nutritious and packed with essential vitamins, minerals, and plant compounds, many of which have medicinal properties. What’s more, they’re delicious and easy to add to your diet in dishes like balsamic roasted beets, hummus, fries, and salads, among many others. Here are 9 evidence-based benefits of beets, plus some tasty ways to increase your intake. Share on Pinterest Beets boast an impressive nutritional profile. They’re low in calories yet high in valuable vitamins and minerals. In fact, they contain a bit of almost all of the vitamins and minerals your body needs (1Trusted Source). Here’s an overview of the nutrients found in a 3.5-ounce (100-gram) serving of boiled beetroot (1Trusted Source): Calories: 44 Protein: 1.7 grams Fat: 0.2 grams Carbs: 10 grams Fiber: 2 grams Folate: 20% of the Daily Value (DV) Manganese: 14% of the DV Copper: 8% of the DV Potassium: 7% of the DV Magnesium: 6% of the DV Vitamin C: 4% of the DV Vitamin B6: 4% of the DV Iron: 4% of the DV Beets are particularly rich in folate, a vitamin that plays a key role in growth, development, and heart health (2Trusted Source). They also contain a good amount of manganese, which is involved in bone formation, nutrient metabolism, brain function, and more (3Trusted Source). Plus, they’re high in copper, an important mineral required for energy production and the synthesis of certain neurotransmitters (4Trusted Source). Summary Beets are loaded with vitamins and minerals yet low in calories and fat. They’re also a good source of several key nutrients, including folate, manganese, and copper. Beets have been well studied for their ability to decrease elevated blood pressure levels, which are a major risk factor for heart disease (5Trusted Source). In fact, some studies show that beetroot juice could significantly lower levels of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (6Trusted Source, 7Trusted Source). The effect appears to be greater for systolic blood pressure, which is the pressure when your heart contracts, rather than diastolic blood pressure, which is the pressure when your heart is relaxed. Also, raw beets may exert a stronger effect than cooked ones (7Trusted Source, 8Trusted Source). These blood-pressure-lowering effects are likely due to the high concentration of nitrates in this root vegetable. In your body, dietary nitrates are converted into nitric oxide, a molecule that dilates blood vessels and causes blood pressure levels to drop (9Trusted Source). Beets are also a great source of folate. Although research has turned up mixed results, several studies suggest that increasing your intake of folate could significantly lower blood pressure levels (10Trusted Source). However, keep in mind that beets’ effect on blood pressure is only temporary. As such, you need to consume them regularly to experience heart-health benefits over the long term (11Trusted Source). Summary Beets contain a high concentration of nitrates, which can help lower your blood pressure levels. This may lead to a reduced risk of heart disease and stroke. Several studies suggest that dietary nitrates like those found in beets may enhance athletic performance. Nitrates appear to affect physical performance by improving the efficiency of mitochondria, which are responsible for producing energy in your cells (12Trusted Source). According to one review, beetroot juice could enhance endurance by increasing how long it takes to become exhausted, boosting cardiorespiratory performance, and improving efficiency for athletes (13Trusted Source). Promisingly, beet juice has also been shown to improve cycling performance and increase oxygen use by up to 20% (14Trusted Source, 15Trusted Source). It’s important to note that blood nitrate levels peak within 2–3 hours of consuming beets or their juice. Therefore, it’s best to consume them a couple of hours before training or competing to maximize their potential benefits (16Trusted Source). Summary Eating beets may enhance athletic performance by improving oxygen use and endurance. To maximize their effects, consume them 2–3 hours prior to training or competing. Beets contain pigments called betalains, which possess a number of anti-inflammatory properties (8Trusted Source, 17Trusted Source, 18Trusted Source). This could benefit several aspects of health, as chronic inflammation has been associated with conditions like obesity, heart disease, liver disease, and cancer (19Trusted Source). One study in 24 people with high blood pressure found that consuming 8.5 ounces (250 mL) of beet juice for 2 weeks significantly reduced several markers of inflammation, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) (8Trusted Source). Plus, an older 2014 study in people with osteoarthritis — a condition that causes inflammation in the joints — showed that betalain capsules made with beetroot extract reduced pain and discomfort (20). Beetroot juice and extract have also been shown to reduce kidney inflammation in rats injected with toxic, injury-causing chemicals (17Trusted Source). Still, more studies in humans are needed to determine whether enjoying beets in normal amounts as part of a healthy diet may provide the same anti-inflammatory benefits. Summary Beets may have a number of anti-inflammatory effects, although further research in humans is needed. One cup of beetroot contains 3.4 grams of fiber, making beets a good fiber source (1Trusted Source). Fiber bypasses digestion and travels to the colon, where it feeds friendly gut bacteria and adds bulk to stools (21Trusted Source). This can promote digestive health, keep you regular, and prevent digestive conditions like constipation, inflammatory bowel disease (IBS), and diverticulitis (22Trusted Source, 23Trusted Source). Moreover, fiber has been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including colon cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes (23Trusted Source, 24Trusted Source, 25Trusted Source). Summary Beets are a good source of fiber, which benefits your digestive health and reduces the risk of several chronic health conditions. »MORE:Living with diabetes? Explore our top resources. Mental and cognitive functions naturally decline with age, which can increase the risk of neurodegenerative disorders like dementia. The nitrates in beets may improve brain function by promoting the dilation of blood vessels and thus increasing blood flow to the brain (26Trusted Source). Particularly, beets have been shown to improve blood flow to the frontal lobe of the brain, an area associated with higher level thinking like decision making and working memory (27Trusted Source). Furthermore, an older study in people with type 2 diabetes found that reaction time during a cognitive function test was 4% faster in those who consumed 8.5 ounces (250 mL) of beetroot juice daily for 2 weeks, compared with a control group (28Trusted Source). However, more research is needed to determine whether beets could be used to improve brain function and reduce the risk of dementia among the general population. Summary Beets contain nitrates, which may increase blood flow to the brain and improve cognitive function. However, more research in this area is needed. Beetroot contains several compounds with cancer-fighting properties, including betaine, ferulic acid, rutin, kaempferol, and caffeic acid (29Trusted Source). Although more research is needed, test-tube studies have shown that beetroot extract can slow the division and growth of cancer cells (30Trusted SourceTrusted Source, 31Trusted Source, 32Trusted Source). Several other studies have found that having higher blood levels of betaine may be associated with a lower risk of developing cancer (33Trusted Source, 34Trusted Source). However, it’s important to note that most studies on the topic have used isolated compounds rather than beetroot. Therefore, further research on beetroot consumption as part of a well-rounded diet and cancer risk is needed. Summary Some studies show that certain compounds found in beets could have cancer-fighting properties. Still, further research is needed to better understand this potential connection. Beets have several nutritional properties that could make them a great addition to a balanced diet. First, they’re low in fat and calories but high in water, which can help balance your energy intake. Increasing your intake of low calorie foods like this root vegetable has also been associated with weight loss (35Trusted Source). Furthermore, despite their low calorie content, they contain moderate amounts of protein and fiber. Both of these nutrients can make it easier to achieve and maintain a moderate weight (36Trusted Source, 37Trusted Source). The fiber in beets may also support digestive health, decrease appetite, and promote feelings of fullness, thereby reducing your overall calorie intake (38Trusted Source). Additionally, by including them in smoothies or other recipes, you can easily increase your intake of fruits and vegetables to improve the quality of your diet (39Trusted Source). Summary Beets have are high in water, moderate in fiber and protein, and low in calories. All of these properties can balance your energy intake and improve your diet quality. Beets are not only nutritious but also incredibly delicious and easy to incorporate into your diet. You can juice, roast, steam, or pickle them. For a convenient option, you can purchase them precooked and canned. You can even enjoy them raw, either sliced thinly or grated. Choose beets that feel heavy for their size with fresh, unwilted green leafy tops still attached, if possible. Because dietary nitrates are water-soluble, it’s best to avoid boiling beets if you’d like to maximize their nitrate content. Are beets good for people with diabetes? Here are some delicious and interesting ways to add more beets to your diet: Salad. Grated beets make a flavorful and colorful addition to coleslaw or other salads. Try this recipe for Amazing Dressed Beets or a Beetroot, Orange, and Carrot Salad. Dip. Beets blended with Greek yogurt and fresh garlic make a delicious, healthy, and colorful dip. Have a go at this Beetroot and Honey Lemon Houmous. Juice. Fresh beetroot juice is typically better than store-bought versions, which can be high in added sugar and contain only a small amount of beets. Try this beetroot juice recipe, which uses carrot, apple, ginger, celery, and lemon for flavor Soup: Borscht is a popular soup in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia. Try this classic recipe or this beetroot and tomato variation. Leaves. You can cook and enjoy fresh beet leaves similarly to how you’d use spinach. Get some ideas for cooking beet greens here. Roasted. Wedge beetroots and toss them with a little olive oil, salt, pepper, and herbs or spices of your choice. Then, roast them in a 400°F (205°C) oven for 15–20 minutes until they’re tender. Or try these Balsamic Roasted Beets. Summary Beetroot is a delicious and versatile vegetable that’s easy to add to your diet. If possible, choose beets that feel heavy for their size with green tops still attached. Can you eat beets everyday? It’s always best to follow a varied diet. Eating a small amount of beetroot every day is unlikely to do any harm, but a high intake could lead to low blood pressure, red or black urine and feces, and digestive problems for anyone with a sensitivity to the nutrients. A high daily beet consumption may also mean you are not getting nutrients from other foods, however, so try to vary your diet. Always speak with a doctor before making significant dietary changes. Are beets a superfood? Some people call beets a superfood because they are rich in essential nutrients. Are beets anti-inflammatory? Beets contain betalains, a natural coloring agent with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Some research suggests belatains may help reduce both symptoms and biological markers in the body related to inflammation (8Trusted Source, 17Trusted Source, 20). Can beets boost your sexual health? Beets contain nitrates and there is some evidence they may improve the body’s nitric oxide production (40Trusted Source). The body needs nitric oxide to open the blood vessels that are necessary for getting and maintaining an erection. This may make them suitable for people with erectile dysfunction, although there is no scientific evidence to confirm this. Can beets help with sexual function? Beets are highly nutritious and loaded with health-promoting properties. They can support the health of your brain, heart, and digestive system, are a great addition to a balanced diet, boost athletic performance, help alleviate inflammation, and possibly slow the growth of cancer cells. Best of all, beets are delicious and easy to include in your diet. For example, they’re a great addition to salads, side dishes, smoothies, dips, and juices. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/benefits-of-beets#nutrients-and-calories
    WWW.HEALTHLINE.COM
    9 Impressive Health Benefits of Beets
    Beetroots are a vibrantly colored, delicious, and nutritious vegetable with many health benefits. Here are 9 beet benefits, backed by science.
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 9263 Views
  • Zionist Holocaust in Gaza can GO ON! World Court subservient to Israel: No Immediate Ceasefire to avoid Palestinians Genocide | VT Foreign Policy
    January 27, 2024
    VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel

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

    by Carlo Domenico Cristofori

    VERSIONE IN ITALIANO

    The Gaza Genocide can continue! Let’s start from the essential news exposed by mainstream media:

    «Yesterday the International Court of Justice accepted, albeit in part, the requests for “urgent measures” presented by South Africa which accuses the Jewish State of violating the Genocide Convention in its war against Hamas. The Hague judges therefore recognized that “there is” a case to be evaluated – thus rejecting Israel’s request for dismissal – and that the humanitarian situation in Gaza requires timely intervention to protect civilians.”

    «But they did not go so far as to impose an immediate ceasefire, which was Pretoria’s first request.Furthermore, under the six measures imposed by the judges, Israel must prevent the destruction of “evidence” relating to the case and provide the judges with a report on the fulfillment of its obligations – binding on paper – in one month. However, it will take another few months, if not years, for the Court to rule on the merits of the accusations against Israel».

    Terrifying VIDEO from GENOCIDE in Palestine! Barrage of Complaints vs Zionist Regime before International Courts

    The Mass Graves of Gaza Cry for Mercy

    To make a very current comparison on this Day of Remembrance in memory of the Shoah against the Jews, it is as if the judges of the World Court had asked Adolf Hitler to preserve the bones of the deportees who died in hunger bunkers like Father Maximilian Kolbe, killed by the terrible eugenic pharmaceutical experiments carried out on ROM gypsiesor for the summary executions that took place in the concentration camps where mass graves became known, also used by the Tito communists in the Yugoslavian Foibe.

    KOLBE: MARTIRE DELLA CARITA’ DAVANTI ALLA FEROCIA NAZISTA. San Massimiliano Testimone degli Orrori di Auschwitz

    Today it is the Muslim and Christian Palestinians who have to carry out mass burials in which to throw children because the holocaust carried out by the Hitler of the new century, as Turkey defined the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, has reached around 26 thousand deaths between where over 12 thousand children massacred like rats in a blatant extermination that only the Western accomplices of the Zionist regime do not want to see.

    Just as the Rockefellers did not want to see the crimes of Nazism while they financed the industrial operations of the Fuhrer who, according to those best informed, entrusted the construction of the death train railway to the Auschwitz concentration camp.

    Why Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was Axis Ally of Hitler & Nazis

    Faced with all this, the International Court of Justice, a body recognized by the UN, demonstrates that it is dominated by the geopolitical power of the NATO countries that support (with the rare exception of Spain) the holocaust perpetrated by Netanyahu.

    In fact, if they had to urgently deal with the complaints formalized by South Africa for genocide, war crimes and violations of human rights by the Israeli Army, it was precisely in order to be able to interrupt the extermination of the Palestinians which cannot in any way be justified by the desire to free the Hamas hostages.

    Devastating Raid in GAZA Hospital. Turkish Lawyers blames of “genocide” Netanyahu: “the 21st century Hitler”

    The attitude of the international judges, however, was similar to that of Pontius Pilate who sent Jesus Christ to death for not wanting to get involved in the issues of the Pharisee Sanhedrin who wanted to eliminate him because he dared to declare himself the Son of God (as all his devotees can be considered).

    Netanyahu like King Erode in the Innocents Massacre. UNiCEF: 3342 Children Killed in Gaza. Israel: “NO Inquiry on Hospital Bombing”

    Even today, as then, the Jews in power killed an innocent man, then his disciple and first martyr Saint Stephen and subsequently some of the other apostles with their followers who converted to Christianity. Already then there was the persecution and extermination of the innocent following the example of King Herod.

    The Catholic Rulers complicit in the Extermination

    Netanyahu managed to do even worse. He managed to justify before Western governments who in many cases declare themselves Catholic (such as the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the American President Joseph Biden) an action “dedicated to extermination” as evidenced by the Old Testament when the divine work – in times of perennial wars between ferocious pagan races – it legitimized the action of the Jews to show the strength of the Almighty but above all to guarantee the survival of his Blessed People, subsequently condemned to the Diaspora when they crucified the Christ (Messiah in Aramaic) who was then resurrected.

    US President Biden Sued for Complicity In Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

    If we do not analyze current history through the filter of the Bible, it is difficult to understand the reasons for the cruelty of the Zionists, a political movement made powerful by Freemasonry in an anti-Christian key as we highlighted in a previous historical survey, and the crazy project to rebuild Netanyahu’s Greater Israel (in which obviously also lurks the materialistic objective of the Marine Gaza gas fields as we will see in detail in a future report).

    Gaza, Donbass, Syria: GENOCIDES of the Zionist, Nazi, Jihadist Regimes is US-NATO’s “New” Geopolitical WEAPON

    Hamas is an Unacceptable Excuse for the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians

    In fact, the ethnic annihilation of a population to kill a few thousand Hamas terrorist paramilitaries who control Gaza through fear but are accepted by the Palestinians because they represent the only defensive response to the daily abuses of the Israeli military and settlers is unjustifiable.

    In this journalistic newspaper we gave the example that destroying civilian buildings, hospitals and churches in Gaza to ferret out jihadist terrorists is like bombing Palermo or Reggio Calabria to eliminate Italian mobsters.

    “Jihadist Terrorist Danger in the West”. Due to Israeli Bombing on Gaza & its Gas Affairs! Interpol Officer reveals in Exclusive Interview

    This comparison was cited by an expert on Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern geopolitics, the former Italian Interpol official Antonio Evangelista, author of a book on wars in the Mediterranean, during an interview with the director of Gospa News Fabio G.C. Carisio…

    He himself also explained what alternative anti-terrorism strategies could have been used to identify the Hamas terrorists and thus be able to free the hostages of the attack on 7 October, which succeeded only thanks to the sensational and suspicious failure of the Israeli intelligence as if it were a premeditated occult plot to justify the genocidal reaction, interrupted only for a short time.

    Update – INTEL DROP by CIA ex Agent: Hamas-Israel Fighting, likelihood “False Flag” to Wipe Gaza Off the Map. Warnings by Egypt Ignored

    We also accused Pope Francis of a Pilatesque attitude when he didn’t say even a word about the massacre of innocent men and children carried out by the Israel Defense Forces by bombing the Orthodox Church of St. Porphyry in Gaza.

    As soon as the fearful ruler of the Vatican State had the courage to raise his voice in defense of the Palestinians, Netanyahu’s snipers killed two Christians in front of the Church of the Holy Family in Gaza and bombed the convent of Catholic nuns, wounding some of them.

    ZioNazi Gift for Pope’s Birthday! Netanyahu’s Sniper Murdered Christian Women in Gaza Latin Parish. Rockets on the Monastery

    This happened on the eve of the Pontiff’s birthday as a perfidious gift from the regime which we do not hesitate to define as Nazi-Zionist also for the arms deals initiated by the war industries of Israel with the Ukrainian nationalists nostalgic for the SS of the Azov Battalion which Gospa News reported in times suspicions way back in 2019.

    FREEMASONRY & ZIONISM – 1. Apocalyptic “Cataclysms” by Synagogue of Satan: Genocides in Palestine & Plotted Pandemic for Lethal Vaccines.

    The Useless Future Genocide Trial When Palestinians Are Exterminated

    Faced with the bodies of torn pregnant women from which newborns are extracted ready to see the light but destined to close their eyes forever after a few moments, faced with the barbarity of this genocide which the most extremist politicians of Zionism in Netanyahu’s government shamelessly admit by invoking the depopulation of the Gaza Strip (but also of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian National Authority and not by Hamas terrorists), in the face of the rivers of blood that flow in the Holy Land, how dare human beings who call themselves judges give up on imposing a truce?

    Final Countdown to Complete 1948’s Nakba. Israeli Govt admits the ZioNazi Genocide’s Goal: Depopulate Gaza Strip

    It matters little if their decision would have been as useless as the UN resolution which for years has forced Israel to release the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights.

    It would have been a strong signal of condemnation of the Zionist regime which even threatened to sue the International Court of Justice before the United Nations…

    The judges infuriated the Israeli prime minister for finding South Africa’s genocide complaint admissible. But if and when in a few months they speak out in Gaza there will be no more Palestinians: because they will have fled to Egypt, according to the secret plan of Israeli intelligence, and the others will all be dead…

    Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published

    Carlo Domenico Cristofori
    © COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS
    prohibition of reproduction without authorization
    follow Gospa News on Telegram

    GOSPA NEWS – PALESTINE GENOCIDE

    GOSPA NEWS – CONSPIRACY – FREEMASONRY – NWO

    GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER

    Expanding War in Gaza: Global Implications due to Western Support on Genocide. Military Analysis by Muslim Retired General

    The Plotted GENOCIDE: Leaked Israeli Plan to Ethnically cleanse Gaza

    The “Greater Israel” Scheme and its Global Power Play: a Delusional Recipe for Armageddon

    Israel’s hostage Deal with Hamas after reaching Target of Genocide and Diaspora in Gaza

    HAMAS VIOLENCE vs ISRAELI WAR CRIMES. Partisan-Terrorists Loved by Gaza, Zionists Shielded by Hague ICC & US

    LOBBY ARMI – 2: LOSCHI AFFARI SIONISTI CON NEONAZISTI, ISLAMISTI E L’INDIA NUCLEARE

    LA FILO-NAZISTA MELONI STA CON CHI UCCIDE I BIMBI IN CHIESA. Appoggia Netanyahu e Crimini di Guerra Sionisti

    IN MEMORY OF FIRST MARTYR SAINT STEPHEN. Main Reports on Christians Persecuted in the Contemporary World

    “Israel must leave the Golan”. The UN’s slap against Trump and Bibi-Briberies

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

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

    Most popolar investigation on VT is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS

    www.gospanews.net/


    ATTENTION READERS

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

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

    https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/zionist-holocaust-in-gaza-can-go-on-world-court-subservient-to-israel-no-immediate-ceasefire-to-avoid-palestinians-genocide/
    Zionist Holocaust in Gaza can GO ON! World Court subservient to Israel: No Immediate Ceasefire to avoid Palestinians Genocide | VT Foreign Policy January 27, 2024 VT Condemns the ETHNIC CLEANSING OF PALESTINIANS by USA/Israel $ 280 BILLION US TAXPAYER DOLLARS INVESTED since 1948 in US/Israeli Ethnic Cleansing and Occupation Operation; $ 150B direct "aid" and $ 130B in "Offense" contracts Source: Embassy of Israel, Washington, D.C. and US Department of State. by Carlo Domenico Cristofori VERSIONE IN ITALIANO The Gaza Genocide can continue! Let’s start from the essential news exposed by mainstream media: «Yesterday the International Court of Justice accepted, albeit in part, the requests for “urgent measures” presented by South Africa which accuses the Jewish State of violating the Genocide Convention in its war against Hamas. The Hague judges therefore recognized that “there is” a case to be evaluated – thus rejecting Israel’s request for dismissal – and that the humanitarian situation in Gaza requires timely intervention to protect civilians.” «But they did not go so far as to impose an immediate ceasefire, which was Pretoria’s first request.Furthermore, under the six measures imposed by the judges, Israel must prevent the destruction of “evidence” relating to the case and provide the judges with a report on the fulfillment of its obligations – binding on paper – in one month. However, it will take another few months, if not years, for the Court to rule on the merits of the accusations against Israel». Terrifying VIDEO from GENOCIDE in Palestine! Barrage of Complaints vs Zionist Regime before International Courts The Mass Graves of Gaza Cry for Mercy To make a very current comparison on this Day of Remembrance in memory of the Shoah against the Jews, it is as if the judges of the World Court had asked Adolf Hitler to preserve the bones of the deportees who died in hunger bunkers like Father Maximilian Kolbe, killed by the terrible eugenic pharmaceutical experiments carried out on ROM gypsiesor for the summary executions that took place in the concentration camps where mass graves became known, also used by the Tito communists in the Yugoslavian Foibe. KOLBE: MARTIRE DELLA CARITA’ DAVANTI ALLA FEROCIA NAZISTA. San Massimiliano Testimone degli Orrori di Auschwitz Today it is the Muslim and Christian Palestinians who have to carry out mass burials in which to throw children because the holocaust carried out by the Hitler of the new century, as Turkey defined the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, has reached around 26 thousand deaths between where over 12 thousand children massacred like rats in a blatant extermination that only the Western accomplices of the Zionist regime do not want to see. Just as the Rockefellers did not want to see the crimes of Nazism while they financed the industrial operations of the Fuhrer who, according to those best informed, entrusted the construction of the death train railway to the Auschwitz concentration camp. Why Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was Axis Ally of Hitler & Nazis Faced with all this, the International Court of Justice, a body recognized by the UN, demonstrates that it is dominated by the geopolitical power of the NATO countries that support (with the rare exception of Spain) the holocaust perpetrated by Netanyahu. In fact, if they had to urgently deal with the complaints formalized by South Africa for genocide, war crimes and violations of human rights by the Israeli Army, it was precisely in order to be able to interrupt the extermination of the Palestinians which cannot in any way be justified by the desire to free the Hamas hostages. Devastating Raid in GAZA Hospital. Turkish Lawyers blames of “genocide” Netanyahu: “the 21st century Hitler” The attitude of the international judges, however, was similar to that of Pontius Pilate who sent Jesus Christ to death for not wanting to get involved in the issues of the Pharisee Sanhedrin who wanted to eliminate him because he dared to declare himself the Son of God (as all his devotees can be considered). Netanyahu like King Erode in the Innocents Massacre. UNiCEF: 3342 Children Killed in Gaza. Israel: “NO Inquiry on Hospital Bombing” Even today, as then, the Jews in power killed an innocent man, then his disciple and first martyr Saint Stephen and subsequently some of the other apostles with their followers who converted to Christianity. Already then there was the persecution and extermination of the innocent following the example of King Herod. The Catholic Rulers complicit in the Extermination Netanyahu managed to do even worse. He managed to justify before Western governments who in many cases declare themselves Catholic (such as the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the American President Joseph Biden) an action “dedicated to extermination” as evidenced by the Old Testament when the divine work – in times of perennial wars between ferocious pagan races – it legitimized the action of the Jews to show the strength of the Almighty but above all to guarantee the survival of his Blessed People, subsequently condemned to the Diaspora when they crucified the Christ (Messiah in Aramaic) who was then resurrected. US President Biden Sued for Complicity In Israel’s Genocide in Gaza If we do not analyze current history through the filter of the Bible, it is difficult to understand the reasons for the cruelty of the Zionists, a political movement made powerful by Freemasonry in an anti-Christian key as we highlighted in a previous historical survey, and the crazy project to rebuild Netanyahu’s Greater Israel (in which obviously also lurks the materialistic objective of the Marine Gaza gas fields as we will see in detail in a future report). Gaza, Donbass, Syria: GENOCIDES of the Zionist, Nazi, Jihadist Regimes is US-NATO’s “New” Geopolitical WEAPON Hamas is an Unacceptable Excuse for the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians In fact, the ethnic annihilation of a population to kill a few thousand Hamas terrorist paramilitaries who control Gaza through fear but are accepted by the Palestinians because they represent the only defensive response to the daily abuses of the Israeli military and settlers is unjustifiable. In this journalistic newspaper we gave the example that destroying civilian buildings, hospitals and churches in Gaza to ferret out jihadist terrorists is like bombing Palermo or Reggio Calabria to eliminate Italian mobsters. “Jihadist Terrorist Danger in the West”. Due to Israeli Bombing on Gaza & its Gas Affairs! Interpol Officer reveals in Exclusive Interview This comparison was cited by an expert on Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern geopolitics, the former Italian Interpol official Antonio Evangelista, author of a book on wars in the Mediterranean, during an interview with the director of Gospa News Fabio G.C. Carisio… He himself also explained what alternative anti-terrorism strategies could have been used to identify the Hamas terrorists and thus be able to free the hostages of the attack on 7 October, which succeeded only thanks to the sensational and suspicious failure of the Israeli intelligence as if it were a premeditated occult plot to justify the genocidal reaction, interrupted only for a short time. Update – INTEL DROP by CIA ex Agent: Hamas-Israel Fighting, likelihood “False Flag” to Wipe Gaza Off the Map. Warnings by Egypt Ignored We also accused Pope Francis of a Pilatesque attitude when he didn’t say even a word about the massacre of innocent men and children carried out by the Israel Defense Forces by bombing the Orthodox Church of St. Porphyry in Gaza. As soon as the fearful ruler of the Vatican State had the courage to raise his voice in defense of the Palestinians, Netanyahu’s snipers killed two Christians in front of the Church of the Holy Family in Gaza and bombed the convent of Catholic nuns, wounding some of them. ZioNazi Gift for Pope’s Birthday! Netanyahu’s Sniper Murdered Christian Women in Gaza Latin Parish. Rockets on the Monastery This happened on the eve of the Pontiff’s birthday as a perfidious gift from the regime which we do not hesitate to define as Nazi-Zionist also for the arms deals initiated by the war industries of Israel with the Ukrainian nationalists nostalgic for the SS of the Azov Battalion which Gospa News reported in times suspicions way back in 2019. FREEMASONRY & ZIONISM – 1. Apocalyptic “Cataclysms” by Synagogue of Satan: Genocides in Palestine & Plotted Pandemic for Lethal Vaccines. The Useless Future Genocide Trial When Palestinians Are Exterminated Faced with the bodies of torn pregnant women from which newborns are extracted ready to see the light but destined to close their eyes forever after a few moments, faced with the barbarity of this genocide which the most extremist politicians of Zionism in Netanyahu’s government shamelessly admit by invoking the depopulation of the Gaza Strip (but also of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian National Authority and not by Hamas terrorists), in the face of the rivers of blood that flow in the Holy Land, how dare human beings who call themselves judges give up on imposing a truce? Final Countdown to Complete 1948’s Nakba. Israeli Govt admits the ZioNazi Genocide’s Goal: Depopulate Gaza Strip It matters little if their decision would have been as useless as the UN resolution which for years has forced Israel to release the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights. It would have been a strong signal of condemnation of the Zionist regime which even threatened to sue the International Court of Justice before the United Nations… The judges infuriated the Israeli prime minister for finding South Africa’s genocide complaint admissible. But if and when in a few months they speak out in Gaza there will be no more Palestinians: because they will have fled to Egypt, according to the secret plan of Israeli intelligence, and the others will all be dead… Subscribe to the Gospa News Newsletter to read the news as soon as it is published Carlo Domenico Cristofori © COPYRIGHT GOSPA NEWS prohibition of reproduction without authorization follow Gospa News on Telegram GOSPA NEWS – PALESTINE GENOCIDE GOSPA NEWS – CONSPIRACY – FREEMASONRY – NWO GOSPA NEWS – WEAPONS LOBBY DOSSIER Expanding War in Gaza: Global Implications due to Western Support on Genocide. Military Analysis by Muslim Retired General The Plotted GENOCIDE: Leaked Israeli Plan to Ethnically cleanse Gaza The “Greater Israel” Scheme and its Global Power Play: a Delusional Recipe for Armageddon Israel’s hostage Deal with Hamas after reaching Target of Genocide and Diaspora in Gaza HAMAS VIOLENCE vs ISRAELI WAR CRIMES. Partisan-Terrorists Loved by Gaza, Zionists Shielded by Hague ICC & US LOBBY ARMI – 2: LOSCHI AFFARI SIONISTI CON NEONAZISTI, ISLAMISTI E L’INDIA NUCLEARE LA FILO-NAZISTA MELONI STA CON CHI UCCIDE I BIMBI IN CHIESA. Appoggia Netanyahu e Crimini di Guerra Sionisti IN MEMORY OF FIRST MARTYR SAINT STEPHEN. Main Reports on Christians Persecuted in the Contemporary World “Israel must leave the Golan”. The UN’s slap against Trump and Bibi-Briberies Fabio G. C. Carisio Fabio is investigative journalist since 1991. Now geopolitics, intelligence, military, SARS-Cov-2 manmade, NWO expert and Director-founder of Gospa News: a Christian Information Journal. His articles were published on many international media and website as SouthFront, Reseau International, Sputnik Italia, United Nation Association Westminster, Global Research, Kolozeg and more… Most popolar investigation on VT is: Rumsfeld Shady Heritage in Pandemic: GILEAD’s Intrigues with WHO & Wuhan Lab. Bio-Weapons’ Tests with CIA & Pentagon Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio, born on 24/2/1967 in Borgosesia, started working as a reporter when he was only 19 years old in the alpine area of Valsesia, Piedmont, his birth region in Italy. After studying literature and history at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, he became director of the local newspaper Notizia Oggi Vercelli and specialized in judicial reporting. For about 15 years he is a correspondent from Northern Italy for the Italian newspapers Libero and Il Giornale, also writing important revelations on the Ustica massacre, a report on Freemasonry and organized crime. With independent investigations, he collaborates with Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza in important investigations that conclude with the arrest of Camorra entrepreneurs or corrupt politicians. In July 2018 he found the counter-information web media Gospa News focused on geopolitics, terrorism, Middle East, and military intelligence. In 2020 published the book, in Italian only, WUHAN-GATES – The New World Order Plot on SARS-Cov-2 manmade focused on the cycle of investigations Wuhan-Gates His investigations was quoted also by The Gateway Pundit, Tasnim and others He worked for many years for the magazine Art & Wine as an art critic and curator. VETERANS TODAY OLD POSTS www.gospanews.net/ ATTENTION READERS We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion. About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. https://www.vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/01/zionist-holocaust-in-gaza-can-go-on-world-court-subservient-to-israel-no-immediate-ceasefire-to-avoid-palestinians-genocide/
    WWW.VTFOREIGNPOLICY.COM
    Zionist Holocaust in Gaza can GO ON! World Court subservient to Israel: No Immediate Ceasefire to avoid Palestinians Genocide
    by Carlo Domenico Cristofori VERSIONE IN ITALIANO The Gaza Genocide can continue! Let's start from the essential news exposed by mainstream media: «Yesterday the International Court of Justice accepted, albeit in part, the requests for "urgent measures" presented by South Africa which accuses the Jewish State of violating the Genocide Convention in its war against...
    Like
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 13102 Views
  • Son of man killed in ITV News Gaza video says family 'can't believe it'
    Thursday 25 January 2024 at 9:27pm


    The son of the man who was shot dead while holding a white flag in Gaza has spoken to ITV News after the fatal attack, as Senior Correspondent John Irvine reports

    The son of an innocent Palestinian man who was shot dead amongst a group waving a white flag in Gaza, told ITV News he cannot believe what happened.

    On Tuesday, footage filmed by Mohammed Abu Safia, a cameraman working for ITV News, showed a group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, who wanted to rescue their family after being forced to evacuate their homes.

    Minutes later, one of the men, Ramzi Abu Sahloul, was fatally shot in the chest.

    In the video, his son Mohammed Abu Sahoul is seen screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground.

    Speaking ITV News on Thursday, the young boy said he "couldn't believe it happened."

    "How was he shot? He was carrying a white flag, a symbol of peace, not of killing or violence," he added.

    Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says
    A group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, told ITV News they wanted to rescue their family members - minutes later one was shot dead, as Senior International Correspondent John Irvine reports

    This video contains distressing images


    Israeli soldiers are suspected of carrying out the attack which - since ITV News aired the video - some campaigners have described as a "war crime".

    Top UN advisor Francesca Albanese said: "Waving a white flag, posing no danger, surrendering, cannot be shot at, otherwise this is a summary execution, and this is what happens, made all the more serious because this was a civilian who was going to rescue his family - shocking.

    "I think it is a televised war crime, there is no justification for killing a civilian.

    "What kind of danger were those people posing? They were just talking to some journalist."

    NHS doctor urges Government to evacuate injured dad from Gaza

    Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says

    The IDF dismissed the video in a statement to ITV News, saying it is "not aware of this incident."

    "The video is clearly edited and we have no way to comment," a spokesperson said.

    On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Sir David Cameron visited Jerusalem to speak to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The former prime minister told broadcasters: “What I was saying is, look, it’s time for an immediate pause in the fighting because we’ve got to not only get the aid in, but, crucially, we’ve got to get those hostages out.

    “And what I think we can do now is plan for how you turn that pause into a permanent, sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting. That’s what I was pushing him on. And that’s what I’ll be talking about here today.”

    He said the Hamas leadership must leave Gaza for a cessation, but that the Palestinians must also be shown there is a “route to having a Palestinian state, to having a new future”.

    Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know...

    https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-25/gaza-son-of-man-killed-in-itv-news-clip-says-family-cant-believe-it
    Son of man killed in ITV News Gaza video says family 'can't believe it' Thursday 25 January 2024 at 9:27pm The son of the man who was shot dead while holding a white flag in Gaza has spoken to ITV News after the fatal attack, as Senior Correspondent John Irvine reports The son of an innocent Palestinian man who was shot dead amongst a group waving a white flag in Gaza, told ITV News he cannot believe what happened. On Tuesday, footage filmed by Mohammed Abu Safia, a cameraman working for ITV News, showed a group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, who wanted to rescue their family after being forced to evacuate their homes. Minutes later, one of the men, Ramzi Abu Sahloul, was fatally shot in the chest. In the video, his son Mohammed Abu Sahoul is seen screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground. Speaking ITV News on Thursday, the young boy said he "couldn't believe it happened." "How was he shot? He was carrying a white flag, a symbol of peace, not of killing or violence," he added. Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says A group of men in Gaza, holding a white flag, told ITV News they wanted to rescue their family members - minutes later one was shot dead, as Senior International Correspondent John Irvine reports This video contains distressing images Israeli soldiers are suspected of carrying out the attack which - since ITV News aired the video - some campaigners have described as a "war crime". Top UN advisor Francesca Albanese said: "Waving a white flag, posing no danger, surrendering, cannot be shot at, otherwise this is a summary execution, and this is what happens, made all the more serious because this was a civilian who was going to rescue his family - shocking. "I think it is a televised war crime, there is no justification for killing a civilian. "What kind of danger were those people posing? They were just talking to some journalist." NHS doctor urges Government to evacuate injured dad from Gaza Gaza: Permanent ceasefire and two-state solution can be achieved, Cameron says The IDF dismissed the video in a statement to ITV News, saying it is "not aware of this incident." "The video is clearly edited and we have no way to comment," a spokesperson said. On Thursday, Foreign Secretary Sir David Cameron visited Jerusalem to speak to Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The former prime minister told broadcasters: “What I was saying is, look, it’s time for an immediate pause in the fighting because we’ve got to not only get the aid in, but, crucially, we’ve got to get those hostages out. “And what I think we can do now is plan for how you turn that pause into a permanent, sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting. That’s what I was pushing him on. And that’s what I’ll be talking about here today.” He said the Hamas leadership must leave Gaza for a cessation, but that the Palestinians must also be shown there is a “route to having a Palestinian state, to having a new future”. Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know... https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-25/gaza-son-of-man-killed-in-itv-news-clip-says-family-cant-believe-it
    WWW.ITV.COM
    Gaza: Son of man killed in ITV News clip says family 'can't believe it' | ITV News
    Footage shot by ITV News shows Mohammed Abu Sahoul screaming as his father lies lifeless on the ground in Gaza. | ITV National News
    Sad
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares 3317 Views
  • Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic”
    “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way”


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

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

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

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

    ***

    Psychics or psychopaths at the helm?

    —Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, January 21, 2024

    Hypothetical “Disease X”

    The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud

    by

    Michel Chossudovsky

    Introduction

    WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, continues to mislead public opinion Worldwide.

    There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease exports. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.“the risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain”. says Bill Gates.

    “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC).

    “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said.

    How could he know this in advance?

    WHO Director General’s Presentation at Davos24 WEF

    In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr.Tedros recanted Bill Gates’ premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. (see video below).

    Bill Gates is Tedros’ Mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”.

    Bill Gates, Tedros et al (supported by the WHO committee of experts) are now predicting a new hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense.

    According to Forbes:

    Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″

    300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid”

    A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, reporting on an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”.

    Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic.

    “Disease X” Pathogen “Identified” by a WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis



    In early February 2018 a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”.

    click image to access text

    “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.”

    The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017:

    “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential.

    But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years.

    In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added)

    It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”.

    Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time.

    “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee.

    “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests.

    “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph)

    The work of the expert committee was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019.

    The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

    “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”.

    The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X”

    “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation



    The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201)

    An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation:

    On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions.

    Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.”

    “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme.

    Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (emphasis added)



    Video: Tedros stated that Covid was “The First Disease X”

    Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions

    In a Factual Nutshell:

    WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed Cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people.
    There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency.
    On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros, said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China.
    The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases
    All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus.
    In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people.
    In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people.
    In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people.
    The above is a summary. Scroll down for references and analysis

    The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty

    There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences.

    The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire World population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank.

    All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment.

    The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a Worldwide digital ID system.

    According to David Scripac

    “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.”

    Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as :

    “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).”

    Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “With an Unknown Pathogen”

    Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’ numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”.

    A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023.

    “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen.

    Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.”

    She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective.

    “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.”

    The opening of the facility is announced after the Covid inquiry heard evidence that previous governments were ill prepared for a pandemic, with its plans focusing too much on the possibility of an influenza pandemic rather than other viruses. The former prime minister David Cameron had admitted this was a “mistake”.

    “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.”

    (The Guardian, emphasis added)

    What we need is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024).

    Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros, admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”.

    Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 22, 2024, Revised January 24, 2024

    ***

    World Health Organisation Head:

    Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic

    by

    Steve Watson

    Original source Modernity

    In an appearance at the globalist World Economic Forum in Davos, the Director General of the World Health Organisation urged that global cooperation will be needed during the next pandemic, and that national interests” hinder compliance.

    In a session titled “Disease X,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that in order to be “better prepared” and “to understand disease X,” the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Agreement’ needs to be adopted globally.

    “This is about a common enemy,” Tedros continued, adding “without a shared response, we will face the same problem as COVID.”

    He explained that the decline for the legislation is May of this year and member states are negotiating between countries to implement it.

    “This is a common global interest, and very narrow national interests should not come in the way,” he continued, adding “of course national interests are natural, but they could be difficult and affect the negotiations.”

    Tedros also declared that COVID was “the first disease X, and it could happen again.”

    Here is the full exchange:

    Before the cosy chat, Rebel news reporter Avi Yemini confronted Tedros and asked for his opinion on global lockdowns and vaccination mandates.

    He had nothing to say.

    First published by Modernity

    References



    There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 21, 2024

    Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid,

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 14, 2023

    The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking,

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2023

    *

    The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

    Free of Charge for ALL our Readers. Click here to Download

    The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

    by Michel Chossudovsky

    Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

    “My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

    Reviews

    This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

    In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

    In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig

    Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

    A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

    ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

    Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

    We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page.

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

    Related Articles from our Archives

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organisation-head-global-compliance-needed-next-pandemic/5847006
    Hypothetical “Disease X”: The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud. Demands Compliance for “Next Pandemic” “Very narrow national interests should not come in the way” All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version). To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here. Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. New Year Donation Drive: Global Research Is Committed to the “Unspoken Truth” *** Psychics or psychopaths at the helm? —Felicity Arbuthnot, Global Research, January 21, 2024 Hypothetical “Disease X” The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud by Michel Chossudovsky Introduction WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, continues to mislead public opinion Worldwide. There is no such thing as “Disease X”. It’s a hypothetical construct by a WHO expert committee (2017-2018) of virologists and disease exports. It was then envisaged in the Clade X Simulation (May 2018) and Event 201 Simulation of a Pandemic (October 2019). Both events were held under the auspices of the John Hopkins Center for Heath Security with the support of the Gates Foundation.“the risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have “dramatically reduced” but another pandemic is all but certain”. says Bill Gates. “A potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family” (CNBC). “We’ll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time,” Gates said. How could he know this in advance? WHO Director General’s Presentation at Davos24 WEF In his presentation at the Davos24 WEF, the WHO Director General Dr.Tedros recanted Bill Gates’ premonition, pointing to the alleged severity of the Covid-19 crisis initiated in early 2020, in blatant contradiction with official WHO data. (see video below). Bill Gates is Tedros’ Mentor. They have a close personal relationship, which occasionally borders on “conflict of interest”. Bill Gates, Tedros et al (supported by the WHO committee of experts) are now predicting a new hypothetical pathogen which is allegedly 20 times more deadly than SARS-CoV-2. What absolute nonsense. According to Forbes: Disease X, a hypothetical unknown threat, is the name used among scientists to encourage the development of countermeasures, including vaccines and tests, to deploy in the case of a future outbreak—the WHO convened a group of over 300 scientists in November 2022 to study the “unknown pathogen that could cause a serious international epidemic,” positing a mortality rate 20 times that of Covid-19″ 300 scientists to study something which is unknown and hypothetical? The media propaganda buzz, quoting “scientific opinion” is “Disease X 20 times more dangerous than Covid” A renewed fear campaign 24/7 has been launched, reporting on an alleged new wave of Covid deaths, while totally ignoring the tide of excess mortality resulting from the Covid-19 “vaccine”. Video: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic. “Disease X” Pathogen “Identified” by a WHO Expert Committee Two Years Prior to the Covid-19 Crisis In early February 2018 a WHO expert committee convened behind closed doors in Geneva “to consider the unthinkable”. click image to access text “The goal was to identify pathogens with the potential to spread and kill millions but for which there are currently no, or insufficient, countermeasures available.” The Expert Committee had met on two previous occasions, most probably in 2017: “It was the third time the committee, consisting of leading virologists, bacteriologists and infectious disease experts, had met to consider diseases with epidemic or pandemic potential. But when the 2018 list was released two weeks ago [mid February 2018] it included an entry not seen in previous years. In addition to eight frightening but familiar diseases including Ebola, Zika, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), the list included a ninth global threat: Disease X.” (Daily Telegraph, emphasis added) It all sounds very scientific based on experts contracted by the WHO, under the advice of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: “Disease X represents the knowledge [what knowledge?] that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease”. Experts on the WHO panel say Disease X could emerge from a variety of sources and strike at any time. “History tells us that it is likely the next big outbreak will be something we have not seen before”, said John-Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and a scientific adviser to the WHO committee. “It may seem strange to be adding an ‘X’ but the point is to make sure we prepare and plan flexibly in terms of vaccines and diagnostic tests. “We want to see ‘plug and play’ platforms developed which will work for any, or a wide number of diseases; systems that will allow us to create countermeasures at speed.” (Telegraph) The work of the expert committee was followed by two table top simulations respectively in May 2018 and October 2019. The Clade X Simulation: “Parainfluenza Clade X” A few months following the WHO experts’ meeting in Geneva in early 2018, at which a hypothetical Disease X was categorized as a “global threat’, the Clade X table top simulation was conducted Washington D.C. (May 2018) under the auspices of The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “The scenario begins with an outbreak of novel parainfluenza virus that is moderately contagious and moderately lethal and for which there are no effective medical countermeasures”. The virus is called: “Parainfluenza Clade X” “Disease X” and the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation The Hypothetical Disease X Concept developed in 2017-2018 by a WHO Expert Committee of leading virologists and disease experts was simulated in the Event 201 Table Top Simulation of a deadly corona virus pandemic. The Global Pandemic Exercise was held in New York under the auspices of the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, Centre for Heath Security (which hosted the May 2018 Clade X Simulation). The event was sponsored by the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum. (Event 201) An October 21, 2019 report “Disease X dummy run: World health experts prepare for a deadly pandemic and its fallout confirms that Disease X was part of the 201 Global Pandemic Simulation: On Friday a panel of 15 high-powered international figures gathered in the ballroom of a New York hotel to “game” a scenario in which a pandemic is raging across the world, killing millions. Health experts fully expect the world to be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic. The updates were coming into the situation room thick and fast – and the news was not good. The virus was spreading… The former deputy director of the CIA took off her glasses, rubbed her eyes, and addressed the panel. “We also have to consider that terrorists could take advantage of this situation,” she said. “We’re looking at the possibility of famine. There is the potential for outbreaks of secondary diseases.” “I fully expect that we will be confronted by a fast-moving global pandemic,” said Dr Mike Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organisation (WHO) health emergencies programme. Addressing participants – and the 150 observers – before the scenario began, he said that the WHO deals with 200 epidemics every year. It’s only a matter of time before one of those becomes a pandemic – defined as a disease prevalent over a whole country or the world.” (emphasis added) Video: Tedros stated that Covid was “The First Disease X” Evidence: No Pandemic in Early 2020. Misleading Statements by Dr. Tedros, Fraudulent Decisions In a Factual Nutshell: WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, launched a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30th 2020. There was 83 “confirmed Cases” outside China for a population of 6.4 billion people. There was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency. On February 20th, 2020: At a briefing in Geneva, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros, said that he was “concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.” Those statements were based on 1076 “confirmed cases” outside China. The WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic on March 11, 2020 at a time when the number of PCR cases outside China (6.4 billion population) was of the order of 44,279 cumulative confirmed cases All so-called confirmed cases are the result of the PCR test, which does not detect the virus. In the US on March 9, 2020, there were 3,457 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 329.5 million people. In Canada on March 9, 2020, there were 125 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 38.5 million people. In Germany on March 9, 2020, there were 2948 “confirmed cases” out of a population of 83.2 million people. The above is a summary. Scroll down for references and analysis The “Disease X” Fear Campaign and the Pandemic Treaty There is vast literature on the Pandemic Treaty and its likely consequences. The Pandemic Treaty consists in creating a global health entity under WHO auspices. It’s the avenue towards “Global Governance” whereby the entire World population of 8 billion would be digitized, integrated into a global digital data bank. All your personal information would be contained in this data bank, leading to the derogation of fundamental human rights as well as the subordination of national governments to dominant financial establishment. The Pandemic Treaty would be tied into the creation of a Worldwide digital ID system. According to David Scripac “A worldwide digital ID system is in the making. [The aim] of the WEF—and of all the central banks [is] to implement a global system in which everyone’s personal data will be incorporated into the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) network.” Peter Koenig describes the underlying process as : “an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, banking, personal and private, etc.).” Bombshell: A Vaccine for a Hypothetical “Disease X” Pandemic “With an Unknown Pathogen” Announced by Dr. Tedros at Davos24, not to mention Bill Gates’ numerous authoritative statements, governments must prepare for the outbreak of “Disease X”. A State of the Art “Vaccine” allegedly to “Build our Immunity” against “Disease X” (which is a hypothetical construct based on an unknown pathogen) is slated to be developed at Britain’s “Vaccine Development and Evaluation Centre” (UK Health and Security Agency’s (UKHSA) Porton Down campus in Wiltshire, inaugurated in August 2023. “Ministers have opened a new vaccine research centre in the UK where scientists will work on preparing for “disease X”, the next potential pandemic pathogen. Prof Dame Jenny Harries said: “What we’re trying to do now is capture that really excellent work from Covid and make sure we’re using that as we go forward for any new pandemic threats.” She added: “What we try to do here is keep an eye on the ones that we do know. For example, with Covid, we are still here testing all the new variants with the vaccines that have been provided to check they are still effective. “But we are also looking at how quickly we can develop a new test that would be used if a brand new virus popped up somewhere.” The opening of the facility is announced after the Covid inquiry heard evidence that previous governments were ill prepared for a pandemic, with its plans focusing too much on the possibility of an influenza pandemic rather than other viruses. The former prime minister David Cameron had admitted this was a “mistake”. “This state-of-the-art complex will also help us deliver on our commitment to produce new vaccines within 100 days of a new threat being identified.” (The Guardian, emphasis added) What we need is a mass movement to oppose the adoption of the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly (May 27, 2024). Ironically to say the least, the WHO Director General Tedros, admits that “the momentum had been slowed down by entrenched positions and “a torrent of fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 22, 2024, Revised January 24, 2024 *** World Health Organisation Head: Global Compliance Needed For Next Pandemic by Steve Watson Original source Modernity In an appearance at the globalist World Economic Forum in Davos, the Director General of the World Health Organisation urged that global cooperation will be needed during the next pandemic, and that national interests” hinder compliance. In a session titled “Disease X,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus stated that in order to be “better prepared” and “to understand disease X,” the WHO’s ‘Pandemic Agreement’ needs to be adopted globally. “This is about a common enemy,” Tedros continued, adding “without a shared response, we will face the same problem as COVID.” He explained that the decline for the legislation is May of this year and member states are negotiating between countries to implement it. “This is a common global interest, and very narrow national interests should not come in the way,” he continued, adding “of course national interests are natural, but they could be difficult and affect the negotiations.” Tedros also declared that COVID was “the first disease X, and it could happen again.” Here is the full exchange: Before the cosy chat, Rebel news reporter Avi Yemini confronted Tedros and asked for his opinion on global lockdowns and vaccination mandates. He had nothing to say. First published by Modernity References There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 21, 2024 Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid, By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 14, 2023 The Covid “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s A Criminal Undertaking, By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 24, 2023 * The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity Free of Charge for ALL our Readers. Click here to Download The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity by Michel Chossudovsky Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts. “My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.” Reviews This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac A reading of Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late. You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download. We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page. Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. Related Articles from our Archives https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organisation-head-global-compliance-needed-next-pandemic/5847006
    WWW.GLOBALRESEARCH.CA
    Hypothetical "Disease X": The WHO Pandemic Treaty is A Fraud. Demands Compliance for "Next Pandemic"
    There is no such thing as "Disease X". It's a hypothetical construct. According to Bill Gates “Another Pandemic Is All But Certain”… And now, a "Vaccine" is being developed to protect us against a non-existent "Disease X"
    Angry
    1
    0 Comments 1 Shares 11055 Views
More Results